In the case of Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board et al., 1976, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a parole board's decision to deny parole could be subject to judicial review under federal law. The petitioner, Scott, argued that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied parole without being given an opportunity for a hearing or reasons for denial. However, the court ruled against him stating that there is no inherent right in federal law to be released before the end of a valid sentence and thus such decisions by state authorities do not typically fall within jurisdiction of federal courts unless it can be shown that some aspect of state action violates federally protected rights. The court further clarified that while due process applies at stages where freedom from imprisonment is at stake like conviction or sentencing stage; it does not apply once convicted and sentenced as per existing laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Scott v. Kentucky Parole Board et al., 1976, argued that due process should apply to parole revocation proceedings. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that these proceedings were not a part of criminal prosecution and thus did not warrant constitutional protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Instead, they believed that because parole revocation could result in an individual losing their freedom and being incarcerated once again, it was indeed a critical stage of criminal prosecution where due process rights should be upheld. They also expressed concern about potential abuses within the system if such protections were not enforced.