In the case of Maness v. Wainwright, 1976, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Florida inmate who was denied access to legal materials needed for his defense. The court held that prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate law libraries or legal assistance while preparing their habeas corpus petitions and other actions challenging their convictions or conditions of confinement. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that inmates are able to exercise their rights under the Constitution and federal laws even while incarcerated. It also emphasized that states must provide either adequate law libraries or appropriate legal assistance so as not to infringe upon these rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Maness v. Wainwright, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it relied on a misinterpretation of Florida law and an overextension of federal jurisdiction. He believed that the state court had not violated any constitutional rights in its handling of Maness' case, as he had been given ample opportunity to present his defense and appeal his conviction within the state system before seeking federal intervention. Furthermore, he contended that by granting this relief without clear evidence of a constitutional violation or miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court was undermining both states' authority over their own criminal proceedings and public confidence in their judicial systems.