The U.S. Supreme Court case Town of Newton et al. v. Rumery involved a dispute over the legality of "release-dismissal" agreements, in which criminal charges are dropped in exchange for an agreement not to sue public officials or entities. David Rumery was arrested on suspicion of bribery and agreed to such a deal but later sued town officials alleging his arrest had violated his constitutional rights and that he signed under duress. The lower courts ruled against him, stating that these agreements were enforceable unless they were made under coercive circumstances or if enforcing them would adversely affect relevant public interests. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision by 5-4 vote ruling that release-dismissal agreements could be valid as long as they're voluntary, clear and fairly obtained without compromising important government interests - essentially setting up a test for future cases involving similar issues.

In the dissenting opinion for Town of Newton et al. v. Rumery, Justice William Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens, argued that the majority's decision to uphold "release-dismissal agreements" was a grave error. These agreements involve defendants waiving their right to sue law enforcement in exchange for having charges against them dismissed. The dissenting justices believed this practice undermines public trust in the judicial system as it allows potential misconduct by police or prosecutors to go unchecked and unchallenged legally. They also expressed concern about unequal bargaining power between prosecution and defense leading to coerced waivers of constitutional rights from vulnerable defendants who may not fully understand what they're giving up.