In the 1986 case of Rose v. Arkansas State Police, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state trooper's widow was not entitled to receive death benefits under federal law because her husband died during an off-duty activity (playing in a charity softball game). The court held that his death did not occur "in the performance of duty" as required by federal statute for such benefits to be paid out. This decision clarified and narrowed the interpretation of what constitutes "performance of duty," stating it must involve activities directly related to law enforcement or public safety responsibilities rather than any activity undertaken while technically on duty.

In the dissenting opinion for Rose v. Arkansas State Police, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state statute granting immunity to police officers from liability for negligence while in pursuit of law violators contradicted previous rulings by the Court. The dissenters believed this ruling violated due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it denied victims any form of compensation or remedy for their injuries caused by police negligence during high-speed chases. They contended that such blanket immunity could potentially encourage reckless behavior among law enforcement officials without fear of legal consequences. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that legislative judgment should be deferred on matters involving public safety and policy considerations; instead arguing that courts have an obligation to scrutinize laws infringing upon constitutional rights regardless of their intended purpose.