In the case of Michelle Oritz v. Paula Jordan et al., 2010, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute involving child custody and parental rights. The petitioner, Michelle Ortiz, accused her ex-husband's wife (Paula Jordan) and other state officials of conspiring to violate her constitutional rights by manipulating evidence in a child custody battle that resulted in her losing custody of her children. She alleged that this was done through false accusations of abuse which led to an unjustified restraining order against her. However, the court ruled against Ortiz on grounds that she failed to provide sufficient factual matter to support these claims as required under Rule 8(a)(2) for civil procedure cases - i.e., "a short and plain statement" showing entitlement to relief beyond mere speculation or conjecture.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Michelle Ortiz v. Paula Jordan et al., 2010, argued that the majority's decision to dismiss Ortiz's claim was incorrect and failed to uphold her constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that there were clear violations of due process by prison officials who allegedly punished Ortiz for refusing sexual advances from a guard. They contended that these actions constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, which should have been recognized by lower courts as a valid claim for relief. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of precedent cases used to justify their ruling; instead arguing those cases supported Ortiz’s claims rather than refuted them. In essence, they felt this dismissal undermined prisoners' rights and set a dangerous precedent for future similar cases.