In the case of Tollett, Warden v. Henderson in 1972, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who pleads guilty to a crime forfeits his right to challenge any potential constitutional violations arising from pretrial proceedings. The petitioner, Henderson had pleaded guilty to second-degree murder but later sought habeas corpus relief on grounds that he was denied equal protection due to systematic racial discrimination in the selection of grand jury foremen in Tennessee. However, by pleading guilty and voluntarily waiving his rights at trial with assistance from competent counsel, he also waived any claims regarding defects in the state's case against him prior to plea entry. The court held that such complaints about constitutional issues could only be raised if they went directly towards whether or not the plea was voluntary and intelligent; otherwise it would undermine confidence in finality of judicial procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Tollett v. Henderson, Justice William O. Douglas argued that a defendant should not be barred from challenging his conviction on constitutional grounds simply because he pleaded guilty. He believed that if a defendant was denied equal protection during jury selection, it would taint the entire criminal proceeding - including the decision to plead guilty. Therefore, such an individual should have the right to challenge their conviction even after pleading guilty. According to him, this is essential in order to maintain public confidence in our system of justice and ensure fairness within it.