In the 1992 case of John Angus Smith v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a defendant's right to due process was violated when he was convicted based on evidence that had been hypnotically refreshed. The court held in a 5-4 decision that it did not violate due process rights. Smith had been charged with kidnapping and sexual abuse, but his conviction relied heavily on testimony from one victim whose memory of her attacker’s face only became clear after hypnosis sessions. The majority opinion argued that while there are concerns about the reliability of such evidence, these should be addressed through expert testimony and cross-examination rather than an outright ban. They also noted states have considerable leeway in their own rules regarding admissibility of evidence.

In the dissenting opinion for John Angus Smith v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to uphold Smith's conviction under 18 U.S.C §924(c) was a misinterpretation of Congressional intent and an overreach of federal power. He contended that Congress intended this law to apply only in cases where firearms were used or carried during drug trafficking crimes, not merely possessed. In his view, mere possession did not meet the standard set by Congress for "use" or "carry." Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on legislative history rather than clear statutory text as a dangerous precedent which could lead to arbitrary interpretations of laws based on perceived intent rather than explicit language. Finally, he expressed concern about expanding federal jurisdiction into areas traditionally handled by state law enforcement and courts.