In the case of Michael Damon Rippo v. Renee Baker, Warden (2016), Rippo appealed his conviction for murder and sexual assault on the grounds that he did not receive a fair trial due to judicial bias. The judge presiding over his trial was under investigation by the same district attorney's office prosecuting him, which raised questions about potential conflict of interest. Despite this fact being known at the time, no action was taken to address it during his original trial or sentencing phase. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the judgment of Nevada state courts denying relief in light of these allegations, stating that "where a habeas petitioner alleges such a risk [of bias], what matters is not whether a judge harbors actual bias as result but instead whether there exists an unconstitutional 'potential for' bias." This ruling emphasized that even perceived conflicts can undermine public confidence in judicial fairness and must be addressed promptly.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Michael Damon Rippo v. Renee Baker, Warden, Justice Alito disagreed with the majority's decision to vacate and remand the case back to state court. He argued that there was no evidence showing that Judge Mosley had a direct personal interest in Rippo’s trial or knew about any FBI investigation into his conduct at all during this time period. Therefore, he believed it was unnecessary to send it back down for further proceedings on whether an evidentiary hearing is needed regarding these claims of judicial bias. According to him, even if Judge Mosley knew about an ongoing investigation by federal authorities while presiding over Rippo's trial, this would not automatically disqualify him from being impartial unless there were additional facts indicating actual bias against Rippo specifically.