In Skinner et al. v. Louisiana, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state law allowing juries to impose capital punishment only in cases where they also had the option of life imprisonment was unconstitutional. The case involved Elmo Patrick Sonnier, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by electrocution under this law. His lawyers argued that it violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment because it allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory imposition of the death penalty. The court agreed with Sonnier's argument, stating that such laws created a substantial risk that the death penalty would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner due to jury discretion being too broad without clear guidelines or standards on when to apply capital punishment versus life imprisonment. This decision led many states across America to revise their statutes regarding capital punishment so as not violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishments.

In the dissenting opinion for Skinner et al. v. Louisiana, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a state law based on its potential for arbitrary application was misguided and overreaching. He contended that any law could be applied arbitrarily if those in charge chose to do so, but this did not make such laws unconstitutional per se. Furthermore, he believed that it was inappropriate for the Court to interfere with states' rights by dictating how they should structure their criminal justice systems or handle jury selection processes. In his view, these matters were better left to local authorities who understood their communities' needs and values more intimately than federal judges could ever hope to do so from afar.