In Jackson v. Virginia et al., 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a criminal case could challenge their conviction by arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict them beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner, Lawrence Jackson, had been convicted of murder and robbery in Virginia state court but argued on appeal that the prosecution's evidence was not strong enough to support his conviction. The Supreme Court agreed with him and established a new standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims: courts must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the available evidence when viewed most favorably towards prosecution. This ruling clarified an area of law where lower courts had previously applied different standards and has since provided important protection for defendants' rights under Due Process Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Jackson v. Virginia, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to review state court convictions based on sufficiency of evidence was an overreach and a violation of states' rights. He contended that this ruling would lead to unnecessary interference in state criminal proceedings by federal courts, undermining their authority and autonomy. Furthermore, he believed it could potentially result in inconsistent verdicts between state and federal jurisdictions due to differing interpretations of what constitutes sufficient evidence for conviction. Additionally, he expressed concern about the potential burden this might place on already overloaded federal dockets as defendants sought additional avenues for appeal after exhausting options at the state level.