In the case of McKinney v. Alabama in 1975, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally punish an individual for being "addicted to the use of narcotics," as this would be considered cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court also held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize status or condition rather than specific acts. In this case, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted under Alabama's Narcotics Habitual Offender Act which made it a crime to be addicted to drugs. However, his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court on grounds that addiction is more akin to a disease than criminal behavior and thus should not be subjectively punished.

In the dissenting opinion for McKinney v. Alabama, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it was not within the Court's purview to decide whether or not a state law is wise or unwise, but rather its constitutionality. The justice believed that Alabama’s anti-obscenity statute did not violate any constitutional rights as it merely regulated commercial activity which has traditionally been subject to state regulation. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on obscenity laws being overly broad and vague; instead asserting they provided sufficient guidance for those who are governed by them while allowing flexibility in their application based on societal changes in what is considered obscene content.