In the case of Morales v. Turman et al., 1976, a class action lawsuit was brought against Texas officials on behalf of all individuals who were or would be confined in the state's juvenile training schools. The plaintiffs alleged that conditions and practices at these institutions violated their constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They claimed they were subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, denied due process, equal protection of laws, access to courts, freedom from compulsory self-incrimination among others. The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs but refrained from ordering immediate relief because it believed that state authorities should first have an opportunity to correct unconstitutional conditions voluntarily. The Supreme Court held that federal courts had not only jurisdiction over such cases but also broad powers to remedy constitutional violations in state institutions. It stated that if voluntary compliance did not occur promptly after a decision declaring certain conditions unconstitutional then remedial orders could be issued by lower courts without further delay.

In the dissenting opinion for Morales v. Turman, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to uphold a district court ruling against Texas' juvenile correctional facilities was based on an overly broad interpretation of constitutional rights. He contended that while conditions in these institutions may have been poor and required improvement, it did not necessarily mean they violated inmates' constitutional rights. Furthermore, he believed that federal courts should avoid intervening in state matters unless absolutely necessary and felt this case did not meet such criteria. In his view, states should be given more leeway to manage their own affairs without interference from federal authorities or courts unless there is clear evidence of gross misconduct or violation of fundamental rights.