In the Solem v. Bartlett case of 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a life sentence without parole for issuing a fraudulent $100 check was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The defendant, Jerry Buckley Bartlett, had three prior felony convictions when he issued this bad check in South Dakota - an act which triggered state law mandating life imprisonment without possibility of parole due to his status as a habitual offender. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that such severe punishment did not fit with the relatively minor nature of his crime and thus violated principles of proportionality inherent in Eighth Amendment protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Solem v. Bartlett, Justice O'Connor argued that the majority's decision to apply an Eighth Amendment proportionality principle to non-capital sentences was a departure from precedent and could lead to unpredictable results. She contended that there is no clear constitutional basis for such a principle and warned of potential difficulties in its application, given the wide range of sentencing practices across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that Bartlett’s sentence was disproportionate considering his crime and criminal history. Instead, she believed it fell within acceptable bounds set by society through legislatures and sentencing judges who are more familiar with local conditions than federal courts.