In the case of Thomas v. Arn, Superintendent, Ohio Reformatory for Women (1985), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal appeals court could adopt a rule requiring litigants to file objections to a magistrate's report in order to preserve their right to appeal. The petitioner, an inmate at Ohio Reformatory for Women filed suit against prison officials alleging violation of her constitutional rights. A magistrate recommended dismissal of her complaint and she failed to object before it was dismissed by District Court Judge Ann Aldrich. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed based on its rule that failure to object constituted waiver of further review unless exceptional circumstances were present. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling with Justice Byron White writing for majority stating that such rules do not violate Federal Magistrates Act or Constitution as long as they are clear and parties receive notice about them; also noting these rules serve legitimate purposes like reducing workload on appellate courts and encouraging finality in litigation.

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas v. Arn, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's ruling that a federal appellate court could require litigants to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in order to preserve their right of appeal. He argued that this rule was not explicitly stated in any statute or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and therefore should not be imposed on litigants. Furthermore, he contended that it was unfair to penalize parties who were unaware of such an unwritten requirement by denying them their right of appeal. Justice Brennan also expressed concern about the potential for abuse if courts were allowed to create procedural rules without clear statutory authority.