In the case of Simpson v. Florida, 1970, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that allowed for an enhanced sentence based on prior convictions violated the constitutional right to a jury trial. The appellant, Simpson, had been convicted in Florida and sentenced under a habitual offender statute which increased his punishment due to previous felony convictions. He argued this sentencing procedure infringed upon his Sixth Amendment rights because it did not require these prior offenses be proven beyond reasonable doubt before a jury. The Supreme Court disagreed with Simpson's argument and upheld his conviction and sentence. They ruled that once someone has been convicted of an offense by proof beyond reasonable doubt in one trial, they cannot later challenge that fact in another proceeding as it is already established by due process of law. Therefore, using such facts for enhancing sentences does not violate any constitutional rights including those protected by the Sixth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Simpson v. Florida, 1970, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting cohabitation between unmarried individuals of opposite sexes violated constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that this law infringed upon personal liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. They contended that such intimate decisions should be left to individual discretion rather than being regulated by state legislation. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential misuse of this law as a tool for discriminatory enforcement against certain groups or classes of people based on their lifestyle choices or circumstances beyond their control like poverty and homelessness which might force them into shared living arrangements despite not being married.