In the case of Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections v. Goode in 1983, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a state prisoner could challenge his transfer to another prison on constitutional grounds under federal habeas corpus law. The petitioner was an inmate who had been transferred from one correctional facility to another within Florida and claimed that this move violated his rights under the Due Process Clause because he wasn't given a hearing before being moved. However, the court ruled against him stating that while prisoners do have certain constitutional rights, they don't extend to choosing their place of confinement within a state's penal system. Therefore, it held that such transfers are not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence showing conditions at the new location constitute cruel and unusual punishment or violate equal protection laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Wainwright v. Goode, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding habeas corpus petitions. He contended that the Court had previously held that state prisoners could raise federal constitutional claims in federal court even if they had not exhausted all their state remedies or procedural defaults barred them from doing so. The majority's ruling, he believed, imposed an unfair burden on prisoners to demonstrate cause and prejudice before being allowed to present their claims in federal court. This new requirement would effectively deny many inmates access to a fair hearing of their constitutional grievances because it is often difficult for them to meet this standard without legal assistance. Furthermore, Justice Brennan expressed concern about how this change might affect future cases involving alleged violations of fundamental rights by state officials.