In the 1993 case of Kenneth O. Nichols v. United States, Nichols was convicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, based on evidence obtained through a wiretap order issued by a federal judge in Kansas City, Missouri. The Supreme Court had to decide whether this wiretap violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not authorized by a "neutral and detached" judge as required under federal law. Nichols argued that the authorizing judge was not neutral or detached because he had previously supervised grand jury proceedings related to his case. However, the court ruled against him stating that there is no requirement for judges who supervise grand juries from also authorizing wiretaps in those investigations. The court held that while supervising grand jury proceedings may give judges some prior knowledge about cases they later authorize wiretaps for; this does not compromise their neutrality or detachment as long as they do not develop an interest in the outcome of these cases beyond their role as impartial adjudicators.

In the dissenting opinion for Kenneth O. Nichols v. United States, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to uphold Nichols' conviction under 18 U.S.C §922(g)(1) was a misinterpretation of Congressional intent and an overreach of federal power. He contended that Congress did not intend to criminalize mere possession of firearms by felons but rather intended to prevent interstate commerce in firearms from being used as a conduit for arming criminals. The fact that Nichols possessed his firearm entirely within one state meant he should not be subject to this law, according to Blackmun’s interpretation. Furthermore, he expressed concern about expanding federal jurisdiction into areas traditionally reserved for states without clear evidence of congressional intent or constitutional mandate.