The U.S. Supreme Court case In re James Blodgett, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary et al., 1991 involved a dispute over the imposition of death sentences in capital cases. The petitioners were state prison officials who sought to execute prisoners sentenced to death before their federal habeas corpus appeals had been exhausted. They argued that delays in carrying out executions caused by these appeals violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the court rejected this argument and held that there was no constitutional right for states to carry out executions swiftly once a death sentence has been imposed. It further stated that allowing time for full consideration of legal issues raised on appeal is an essential part of ensuring fairness and accuracy in capital sentencing proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for In re James Blodgett, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to uphold a death sentence despite procedural errors during sentencing was fundamentally flawed. He contended that this ruling undermined the Court's own precedent and violated principles of fairness and due process. Specifically, he criticized the majority for ignoring an error in jury instructions which could have led jurors to believe they were required to unanimously agree on mitigating circumstances before considering them - a misunderstanding that may have unfairly biased their decision towards a death sentence. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how quickly and dismissively the court treated such serious issues related to capital punishment cases. Ultimately, Justice Blackmun believed this case represented an alarming trend toward devaluing individual rights in favor of expediency.