In Schreyer v. Scott, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment was not reviewable by the Supreme Court. The case arose when the police in Pennsylvania conducted a warrantless search of the home of the petitioner, Schreyer, and seized evidence of drug possession. Schreyer then filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which was denied by the state court. Schreyer then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the state court’s decision violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court, however, held that the state court’s decision was not reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that the state court’s decision was based on state law, and that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to review state court decisions on matters of state law. The Court also noted that the state court’s decision was not a final judgment, and thus was not reviewable by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court’s decision to deny Schreyer’s motion to suppress evidence was not reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that the state court’s decision was based on state law, and that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to review state court decisions on matters of state law. The Court also noted that the state court’s decision was not a final judgment, and thus was not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court case Schreyer v. Scott, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He believed that the court had misinterpreted precedent set by prior cases, specifically those involving state-created immunities from federal law enforcement actions. In his dissent, Scalia argued that states are not immune to federal criminal prosecution when they violate constitutional rights of individuals or engage in conduct prohibited by Congress under its enumerated powers. Furthermore, he stated that allowing such immunity would undermine congressional authority and weaken individual protections against state abuse of power. Ultimately, Scalia concluded that because there was no clear indication from either Congress or this Court's precedents as to whether states were entitled to immunity from federal prosecutions for violations of constitutional rights or other laws passed pursuant to Congressional authority then it should have been left up to Congress alone decide if such an immunity exists rather than having it determined by judicial interpretation of existing statutes and precedents.