In the United States v. Bailey et al., 1979, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving prisoners who had escaped from federal custody due to allegedly intolerable prison conditions. The defendants argued that they should not be held liable for escape because their actions were justified by these unbearable circumstances. However, the court rejected this argument and upheld their convictions for escaping from federal custody. In its decision, it clarified that duress or necessity could potentially justify an escape only if there was no opportunity to complain about conditions or seek redress through legal channels before fleeing and if immediate return occurred after reaching a position of safety outside prison walls. This ruling established important precedents regarding prisoner rights and responsibilities under U.S law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Bailey et al., Justice Powell, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding "escape" as a criminal offense. They contended that escape should be defined narrowly to include only those instances where an individual has intentionally absconded from lawful custody with no intention of returning. The dissent disagreed with the majority's broad interpretation which included any instance of leaving custody without permission, regardless of circumstances or intent to return. They believed this approach could potentially criminalize innocent behavior such as stepping outside prison boundaries due to confusion or coercion. Furthermore, they expressed concern over how this ruling might disproportionately affect prisoners who are more susceptible to making mistakes due to lack of education or mental illness.