In the 1994 case of Lloyd Schlup v. Paul K. Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, the Supreme Court ruled on a habeas corpus petition from an inmate sentenced to death who claimed actual innocence based on new evidence not presented at trial. The court held that if a petitioner such as Schlup could show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the new evidence (the "actual innocence" standard), then procedural barriers like abuse-of-the-writ doctrine or failure to develop facts in state court should not prevent federal courts from hearing his constitutional claims for relief. This ruling was significant because it lowered the threshold for reviewing procedurally defaulted claims in extraordinary cases where fundamental miscarriages of justice may have occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Lloyd Schlup v. Paul K. Delo, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow habeas corpus petitions based on claims of actual innocence undermines the finality of criminal convictions and disrupts the balance between defendants' rights and society's interest in swift justice. The dissenters believed that there should be a higher standard for such claims than merely showing a reasonable probability that no juror would have convicted in light of new evidence; they suggested requiring clear and convincing evidence instead. They also expressed concern about potential abuse by prisoners who might strategically withhold exculpatory evidence until after their conviction to secure a more favorable forum or delay punishment. Furthermore, they disagreed with allowing federal courts to reassess credibility determinations made by state court juries years earlier based on cold records, arguing this exceeds their authority under post-conviction review statutes.