In Hutto, Arkansas Department of Correction Commissioner v. Ross (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prison sentence could not be deemed cruel and unusual punishment simply because it was longer than sentences given for more serious crimes. The case involved an inmate, Ross, who had been sentenced to 40 years in prison for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with intent to distribute - a term significantly longer than those typically handed down for rape or murder convictions at the time. Ross argued his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments due to its excessive length relative to other offenses' penalties. However, the Supreme Court disagreed stating that there is no requirement under federal law mandating proportionality between crime severity and sentencing length.

In the dissenting opinion for Hutto v. Ross, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling granting relief to an inmate based on cruel and unusual punishment was incorrect. He contended that it was not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide whether or not a prison sentence is too long, as this power should be reserved for state legislatures and Congress. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of previous case law regarding Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. According to him, these cases did not establish a principle that sentences could be reduced simply because they were longer than those typically given for similar crimes in other jurisdictions; rather they only prohibited sentences which were grossly disproportionate compared to the severity of crime committed by defendant.