In the 1997 case of Frank X. Hopkins v. Randolph K. Reeves, Hopkins, a federal prisoner, filed a lawsuit against Reeves under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents for alleged violations of his constitutional rights during his criminal trial and sentencing process by withholding exculpatory evidence and providing ineffective assistance of counsel respectively. The District Court dismissed the claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C §1915(d), stating that it was barred by Heck v Humphrey because he had not shown that his conviction or sentence had been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid in state collateral proceedings or called into question in federal habeas corpus proceeding. Hopkins appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that Heck's favorable termination rule does not apply to Bivens actions brought by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences since they do not implicate any state interests unlike §1983 actions which involve potential interference with ongoing state prosecutions. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment holding that regardless whether petitioner is a state prisoner seeking redress under §1983 or a federal one invoking Bivens remedy; unless he can demonstrate that conviction has already been invalidated then no cause action exists.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Frank X. Hopkins v. Randolph K. Reeves, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Mr. Hopkins failed to adequately consider his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees an accused person’s right to confront their accusers in court and have legal representation during trial proceedings. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Hopkins' inability to cross-examine key witnesses or present evidence on his behalf due to lack of counsel significantly undermined these rights and thus should have been grounds for overturning his conviction rather than upholding it as per majority's view.