In the case of Terry L. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Robert Douglas Smith in 2001, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning habeas corpus petitions and procedural default rules. The respondent, Robert Douglas Smith had been convicted for murder in an Arizona state court but failed to raise his claim about ineffective assistance of counsel during his state post-conviction proceedings as required by Arizona law. He later raised this issue while filing a federal habeas corpus petition which was denied due to procedural default rule that bars federal courts from hearing claims defaulted in state court unless cause and prejudice are shown or if failure to consider would result in fundamental miscarriage of justice. The Ninth Circuit Court reversed this decision stating that he could overcome the procedural default because he received ineffective assistance from his post-conviction relief counsel who did not raise ineffectiveness claim at first opportunity. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court it held that negligence on part of petitioner's post conviction attorney does not constitute 'cause' allowing petitioner to avoid bar on procedurally defaulted claims under federal law thus reversing Ninth Circuit’s judgment.

In the dissenting opinion for Terry L. Stewart, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Robert Douglas Smith (2001), Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a federal law that allows prisoners to challenge their state convictions in federal court only if they can show that the state court decision was "contrary to" or an "unreasonable application of" clearly established Federal law as determined by Supreme Court precedent. She argued that this standard should not be applied so strictly as to prevent reasonable jurists from disagreeing about whether a prisoner has met it. In her view, Smith had presented enough evidence to raise serious questions about whether his trial counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient and whether he suffered prejudice as a result - issues on which reasonable jurists could differ. Therefore, she believed he should have been allowed to proceed with his claim in federal court.