In the case of Scott Kernan, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Antonio A. Hinojosa (2015), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state prisoner who had been denied parole could challenge that decision in federal court on due process grounds. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled in favor of Hinojosa, finding that he did have such a right under the "some evidence" standard established by previous cases. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision without hearing oral arguments or issuing an opinion explaining its reasoning - a procedure known as summary reversal. This means that they disagreed with how the lower court interpreted or applied law but didn't feel it necessary to hear full arguments about it or provide detailed explanations for their disagreement.

In the dissenting opinion for Scott Kernan, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Antonio A. Hinojosa (2015), Justice Sotomayor disagreed with the majority's decision to deny review of a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed an inmate to challenge his parole denial in federal court after exhausting all state remedies. She argued that this case presented an important question about federalism and comity principles: whether a state prisoner can use a federal habeas corpus petition to challenge the factual basis for a parole board’s discretionary decision denying him release on parole when he has already been given full and fair opportunities to contest those facts in state proceedings. The justice contended that by allowing such challenges, lower courts were undermining states' ability to manage their own criminal justice systems without undue interference from federal courts.