In the case of Mabry, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Correction v. Klimas in 1979, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state prisoner who had been denied parole did not have a constitutional right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at his parole hearing. The court held that due process does not require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination at every hearing which might potentially affect the fact or duration of imprisonment. This ruling was based on Greenholtz v Nebraska Penal Inmates where it was established that states could create liberty interests protected by due process through their statutes and regulations but these interests were limited to freedom from restraint imposing "atypical and significant hardship." The decision concluded that since denial of parole merely meant continuation of sentence originally imposed, it did not impose additional punishment or constitute deprivation warranting protection under Due Process Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Mabry v. Klimas, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to deny a prisoner's right to challenge his parole eligibility date was incorrect. He contended that it is essential for prisoners to have access to federal courts in order to protect their constitutional rights and ensure fair treatment under law. The denial of this right, according to him, could lead potentially innocent people being denied justice due simply because they are incarcerated. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Arkansas state law regarding parole eligibility dates and believed that there were significant legal questions about how these dates should be calculated which warranted further review by federal courts.