In the case of Solem v. Stumes, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its decision in Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which held that an accused person's request for counsel is tantamount to an assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights and any waiver given in a subsequent police-initiated custodial interrogation is ineffective, should not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review where final judgments had been entered before Edwards was decided. The respondent Stumes had confessed to murder during a police-initiated interrogation after he had requested but not received legal counsel following his arrest - this confession was used as evidence at trial leading to his conviction. On appeal, he argued that under Edwards such use violated his constitutional rights; however since the judgment against him became final before Edwards was decided, it did not apply according to this ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for Solem v. Stumes, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to not apply Edwards v. Arizona retroactively was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court. He contended that Edwards had established a new rule designed to protect an accused person’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during custodial interrogation by police after invoking their right to counsel, which should be applied in all cases regardless of when they occurred. The justice also expressed concern about fairness and equality under law being compromised if some defendants were denied benefits from this ruling based on timing alone. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that applying Edwards retrospectively would have a significant impact on administration of justice or public safety; instead believing it would only affect a small number of cases where confessions were obtained in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights.