In the 1995 case of Anthony Leo Stutson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a defendant can appeal a restitution order under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) if they did not object during sentencing. The court held that failure to object at sentencing does not bar an appeal unless it results in prejudice to the government's interests. Stutson was convicted for bank fraud and ordered by district court to pay restitution without considering his ability to pay or other factors required by VWPA. He appealed this decision but was denied because he didn't raise objections during his original trial proceedings. However, upon reaching Supreme Court, it reversed lower courts' decisions stating that while Rule 52(b) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows appellate courts discretion in correcting errors forfeited due to lack of timely objection; such forfeiture doesn’t apply when there is no opportunity for objection which happened with Stutson as he wasn't given chance before issuing restitution order.

In the dissenting opinion for Anthony Leo Stutson v. United States, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to uphold a peremptory challenge system in jury selection was flawed. She contended that this practice allowed for potential racial discrimination and bias, undermining the fundamental fairness of trials. Furthermore, she criticized the majority's reliance on Batson v. Kentucky as precedent because it did not adequately address these concerns about systemic bias in jury selection processes. Instead, she proposed an alternative approach where judges would scrutinize more closely any reasons given by prosecutors or defense attorneys for excluding jurors based on race or gender during voir dire (the process of questioning prospective jurors). This way, courts could better ensure equal protection under law and maintain public confidence in justice system integrity.