In the case of Wilbert K. Rogers v. Tennessee, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving retroactive judicial decision-making and its potential violation of due process rights under the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner, Wilbert K. Rogers was convicted for murder in Tennessee after stabbing another man who died over a year later from complications related to his injuries; this occurred before Tennessee abolished their "year-and-a-day" rule which required that death occur within one year and one day of action causing injury for it to be considered homicide or murder. Rogers appealed his conviction arguing that he could not have known at the time of his actions that they would lead to prosecution because they did not meet criteria set by existing law (the "year-and-a-day" rule). However, both state appellate courts upheld his conviction stating abolition of such an outdated common-law rule was justified. The U.S Supreme Court affirmed these decisions with a 5-4 majority ruling against Rogers' argument about ex post facto laws being violated as well as rejecting claims regarding fair warning requirements under due process clause being infringed upon.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilbert K. Rogers v. Tennessee, Justice Scalia argued that the court's decision violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution and undermined legal predictability by retroactively applying a change in common law doctrine to an earlier crime. He contended that it was unfair to apply a new interpretation of law after-the-fact, as individuals should be able to rely on existing laws when making decisions about their behavior. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues for overstepping their judicial role by effectively legislating from the bench instead of leaving changes in criminal statutes up to elected lawmakers who are accountable to voters. The majority’s ruling, according to Scalia's dissenting view, threatened fundamental principles of justice and democratic governance.