In the case of Kenneth Lynce v. Hamilton Mathis, Superintendent, Tomoka Correctional Institution et al., 1996, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lynce who was challenging his re-incarceration after a retroactive cancellation of early release credits. In 1983, Lynce was sentenced to twenty-two years for attempted murder but released on parole in 1992 due to overcrowding and good behavior credits under Florida's provisional release program. However, he was rearrested in 1995 when it was determined that his type of crime did not qualify him for such an early release program according to a revised law enacted post his initial sentencing. The court held that this application violated the Ex Post Facto Clause as it increased punishment by rescinding earned credits retrospectively which led to longer incarceration than initially mandated.

In the dissenting opinion for Lynce v. Mathis, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Ex Post Facto Clause in relation to retroactive cancellation of early release credits. He contended that this clause should only apply when there is an increase in punishment after a crime has been committed and not when changes are made to methods of reducing sentences or parole procedures. In his view, since Lynce had already served his full sentence at the time Florida cancelled its overcrowded prison release program, he could not be considered as being subjected to increased punishment retrospectively. Therefore, according to Scalia’s interpretation, no violation of ex post facto laws occurred.