In the Stone v. Powell case of 1975, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state prisoner cannot challenge his conviction in federal habeas corpus proceedings on grounds that evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial, if he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in state court. The decision significantly limited the ability of individuals convicted in state courts to challenge their convictions in federal court based on violations of Fourth Amendment rights (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures). This ruling stemmed from two separate cases where both defendants claimed their Fourth Amendment rights were violated by police officers during arrest procedures. However, they had already been given opportunities to raise these issues at their respective trials and appeals within their states' judicial systems.

In the dissenting opinion for Stone v. Powell, Justice William Brennan Jr., joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall, argued that the majority's decision to limit federal habeas corpus review of Fourth Amendment claims was a departure from established precedent and undermined constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures. They contended that this ruling would leave state prisoners without an effective remedy for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights because state courts often failed to adequately protect these rights. The dissent also expressed concern about the potential impact on other constitutional guarantees if similar limitations were applied in future cases. They believed that such restrictions could undermine public confidence in the justice system by creating a perception that federal courts were unwilling or unable to enforce constitutionally guaranteed rights.