In the 1995 case Larry Grant Lonchar v. Albert G. Thomas, Warden, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lonchar who was on death row for murder charges and had initially waived his right to appeal but later changed his mind. The court held that federal courts could not refuse to hear a habeas corpus petition solely because it would delay an execution. The majority opinion stated that there is no legal basis for creating an exception to the rule allowing prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions simply due to concerns about manipulation or delays in carrying out executions. This ruling emphasized that all defendants have a constitutional right under the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment which includes access to full judicial review before they are executed.

In the dissenting opinion for Larry Grant Lonchar v. Albert G. Thomas, Warden, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to grant a stay of execution and remand for further proceedings on Lonchar's habeas corpus petition. He argued that this case was not about whether federal courts have jurisdiction over such petitions but rather if they should exercise discretion in hearing them when there are substantial delays caused by the petitioner himself. According to him, it is an abuse of "the writ" (habeas corpus) when prisoners use it as a means to delay their punishment indefinitely through repeated or frivolous appeals - which he believed was happening in this case given Lonchar’s multiple attempts at delaying his sentence via various legal maneuvers since 1986. Furthermore, he pointed out that granting stays of execution encourages more dilatory tactics from death row inmates and undermines public confidence in the rule of law.