In the case of Olim et al. v. Wakinekona, 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an inmate does not have a constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular prison within a state's penal system and therefore can be transferred from one facility to another without due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved Sandin Kaeo Wakinekona, who was serving life imprisonment at Hawaii State Prison but was transferred first to California and then later on to federal prisons in Illinois and Minnesota for security reasons. He filed suit claiming his transfers violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because he had no opportunity for a hearing prior to each transfer decision made by prison officials. However, Justice Rehnquist delivered an opinion stating that while prisoners do have certain protected liberty interests defined by state law or practice such as freedom from arbitrary actions by prison officials or severe changes in conditions of confinement; they don't possess any inherent constitutional right regarding their placement within a state’s correctional system.

In the dissenting opinion for Olim et al. v. Wakinekona, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision failed to consider the significant impact of transferring a prisoner from one state to another on their constitutional rights. He contended that such transfers could potentially disrupt familial relationships and legal assistance, which are crucial aspects of a prisoner’s life and rehabilitation process. Moreover, he criticized the majority's reliance on Meachum v. Fano in reaching its conclusion because it did not involve interstate transfer but rather intrastate transfer where these issues were less pronounced or non-existent altogether. Therefore, according to him, this case required separate consideration due to its unique circumstances and potential implications on prisoners' rights.