In the 1976 case Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation of Florida v. Sykes, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard for federal courts to review state court convictions in habeas corpus proceedings when defendants fail to comply with state procedural rules during their trial or appeal. The defendant, Sykes was convicted by a Florida jury for first-degree murder and robbery but failed to object at his trial about an alleged Miranda rights violation which he later raised on federal habeas review. The Supreme Court ruled that unless the defendant can show cause for noncompliance and actual prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation, failure to abide by state's contemporaneous-objection rule would bar federal habeas relief. This ruling effectively limited defendants' ability to raise issues on appeal that they had not objected during their original trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Wainwright v. Sykes, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to apply a "cause and prejudice" standard was too harsh and restrictive. He believed this would unfairly penalize defendants who had not been adequately represented at trial or who were unaware of their rights. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for the court to introduce such a significant change in habeas corpus law without clear congressional mandate or compelling justification from past precedents. Instead of adopting this new standard, Justice Brennan suggested maintaining existing rules which allowed federal courts to review state convictions on constitutional grounds unless there had been deliberate bypassing of state procedures by defendants.