In the case of Ryan v. Schad, 2012, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Charles L. Ryan, Director of Arizona Department of Corrections against Edward Harold Schad who was convicted for murder and robbery in 1979. The issue at hand was whether a federal court could stay an execution to allow a prisoner to litigate his previously dismissed habeas corpus petition after he had exhausted all his appeals on another claim. The Ninth Circuit Court granted such stay but it was vacated by the Supreme Court stating that there is no justification for granting a stay when claims have been presented or exhausted in state courts and are therefore procedurally defaulted under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Ryan v. Schad, Justice Breyer argued that the majority's decision to deny a stay of execution was based on procedural grounds rather than considering whether or not Schad had received fair representation during his trial. He pointed out that there were significant questions about whether Schad’s counsel had adequately represented him, particularly in failing to present evidence of his troubled childhood and mental health issues which could have influenced sentencing. Furthermore, he criticized the court's refusal to hear arguments about Arizona's death penalty law being unconstitutional due its lack of clear guidelines for juries deciding between life imprisonment and capital punishment. In conclusion, Justice Breyer believed it would be more appropriate for these substantial claims to be addressed before proceeding with an irreversible sentence such as execution.