In the case of Montana v. James Allen Egelhoff, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Montana statute that prohibited defendants from using voluntary intoxication as a defense to criminal charges. The defendant, James Allen Egelhoff, was charged with deliberate homicide after he killed two people while driving under the influence of alcohol. He argued that his state of intoxication should be considered when determining whether he had acted 'purposely' or 'knowingly', which are necessary elements for conviction under Montana law. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and ultimately by the Supreme Court on appeal. The court held that states have broad power to define crimes and defenses and thus can exclude evidence if it does not fit within their definitions. In this case, they found no constitutional violation in excluding evidence about Egelhoff's level of intoxication because it did not infringe upon his right to present a defense; rather it defined what constitutes a legal defense within its jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Montana v. Egelhoff, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision violated due process by denying a defendant the right to present evidence of his intoxication as part of his defense. She asserted that this ruling was inconsistent with historical legal principles and practices which traditionally allowed such evidence in criminal cases. Furthermore, she contended that it is fundamentally unfair to prevent a defendant from introducing relevant evidence about their mental state at the time of an alleged crime, especially when such information could potentially negate or mitigate their culpability. In her view, while states have legitimate interests in combating drunk driving and related offenses, these concerns should not override basic constitutional protections for defendants' rights.