In Moody v. Daggett, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a parolee's due process rights were not violated when he was summoned for a parole revocation hearing but the hearing was delayed until after his full sentence had been served. The plaintiff, Moody, argued that this delay constituted an "atypical and significant hardship" in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. However, the court disagreed with him on this point. They held that since he was already serving time for another offense during this period of delay, it did not impose any additional punishment or restraint beyond what would normally be expected as part of his original sentence. Therefore, no violation of due process occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Moody v. Daggett, Justice Brennan argued that a parole revocation hearing must be held promptly after an offender is taken into custody under a detainer warrant. He believed that the majority's decision to allow indefinite detention without prompt hearings violated due process rights of prisoners and was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on similar issues. Justice Brennan also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by prison officials who could use detainers as a means to punish or control inmates without providing them with an opportunity to challenge their detention in court. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that there were no negative consequences for prisoners subject to detainers; instead, he pointed out several disadvantages such as loss of certain privileges and opportunities within prisons.