The U.S. Supreme Court case Mackey v. Montrym (1978) revolved around the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law that allowed for immediate suspension of a driver's license if they refused to take a breathalyzer test when suspected of drunk driving. The petitioner, Mackey, argued that this violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process as he was not given an opportunity for hearing before the suspension took effect. However, the court ruled in favor of Montrym and upheld the law with a 6-3 decision stating that it served state’s interest in public safety by deterring drunk driving effectively without violating procedural due process requirements under Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that swift punishment could serve as an effective deterrent against drunk driving and any delay caused by providing pre-suspension hearings would undermine its effectiveness.

In the dissenting opinion for Mackey v. Montrym, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the state of Massachusetts had violated due process by automatically suspending a driver's license without providing an opportunity for a hearing prior to suspension. He believed that driving is not just a privilege but also an essential part of modern life and therefore should be protected under procedural due process rights. The majority’s argument was based on the assumption that immediate suspension served as a deterrent against drunk driving; however, Marshall pointed out there was no empirical evidence supporting this claim. Furthermore, he emphasized that even if it did serve as a deterrent, it would still violate constitutional principles because punishment cannot precede adjudication in our legal system.