In the case of Preiser, Commissioner of Correctional Services of New York, et al. v. Newkirk in 1974, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner's claim for restoration to good-time credits was moot because he had already been released from prison and his parole discharge did not depend on those credits. The petitioner argued that even though he was no longer incarcerated, his reputation suffered due to the loss of these credits which could potentially affect future employment opportunities or social relationships. However, the court held that such speculative collateral consequences were insufficient to save this case from being mooted by his release from custody before its resolution.

In the dissenting opinion for Preisser v. Newkirk, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's view that a prisoner's transfer from one facility to another rendered his habeas corpus petition moot. He argued that such transfers could be temporary or reversible and thus not necessarily eliminate the potential harm claimed in a lawsuit. Furthermore, he contended that prisoners have an interest in avoiding wrongful transfers which can affect their eligibility for parole or participation in rehabilitation programs. Therefore, these issues should remain justiciable even after a transfer has occurred. Additionally, Justice Brennan criticized the majority’s reliance on public policy arguments about prison administration and judicial economy rather than focusing on legal principles of mootness doctrine.