In Powell v. Texas (1988), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that criminalized public intoxication violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, as it punished an individual for being afflicted with chronic alcoholism - a condition argued by Powell to be a disease beyond his control. The court ruled in favor of Texas, upholding the conviction of Leroy Powell for public intoxicity. In this case, the court rejected Powell’s argument that punishing him for such behavior amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because he suffered from chronic alcoholism which compelled him to drink excessively and inevitably end up drunk in public places. The majority opinion held that while compulsive drinking might be an illness, public drunkenness was still an act that could rightfully be sanctioned under criminal law due its potential harm or nuisance caused towards society at large.

In the dissenting opinion for Powell v. Texas, 1988, Justice Marshall argued that criminal punishment should be reserved for those who are capable of controlling their actions and consciously choose to violate the law. He believed that alcoholism was a disease which rendered an individual incapable of avoiding public drunkenness; thus punishing such behavior would be cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. Marshall also pointed out inconsistencies in how states treated other diseases with similar effects on behavior, suggesting a double standard when it came to alcoholism. Furthermore, he criticized majority's reliance on Robinson v California (1962), arguing they misinterpreted its ruling by failing to distinguish between status crimes and acts associated with status crimes - while former were unconstitutional per se, latter could still potentially violate Eight Amendment if defendant couldn't control his/her conduct due to illness or addiction.