In the case of Lackawanna County District Attorney, et al. v. Edward R. Coss, Jr., 2000, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant cannot challenge a current sentence on the grounds that it was enhanced based on an earlier conviction which is no longer open to direct or collateral attack because it has expired. The court held this rule applies even if constitutional error occurred in obtaining the prior conviction used for enhancement purposes unless there are exceptional circumstances such as when previous convictions were obtained where failure to appoint counsel violated Gideon v Wainwright (1963). In this case, Edward R Coss Jr had been sentenced for assault and his term was increased due to past convictions he claimed were unconstitutional since he wasn't represented by counsel during those proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Lackawanna County District Attorney, et al. v. Edward R. Coss, Jr., Justice Ginsburg argued that a prisoner should be allowed to challenge an expired sentence if it has affected the length of his current sentence. She disagreed with the majority's view that habeas corpus petitions can only challenge ongoing sentences and not expired ones because she believed this approach was too narrow and failed to consider how past sentences could impact present circumstances in terms of parole eligibility or good-time credits earned while serving time for previous convictions. In her view, prisoners should have access to federal courts through habeas corpus petitions when they believe their constitutional rights have been violated during sentencing procedures regardless of whether those sentences are still being served or not.