In the case of Wardius v. Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that a state cannot require defendants to provide notice of an alibi defense and disclose their witnesses without providing reciprocal discovery rights for the defendant. The court held that this violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment as it was fundamentally unfair to allow one side access to information while denying it to another. This decision came after Robert Eugene Wardius appealed his conviction for robbery on grounds that he had been compelled by an Oregon statute to reveal details about his alibi before trial but was not given similar access to prosecution's evidence or witness list in return.

In the dissenting opinion for Wardius v. Oregon, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to overturn an Oregon law requiring defendants to disclose alibi witnesses prior to trial was a misinterpretation of due process rights. He contended that this rule did not violate any constitutional protections but rather served as a procedural requirement aimed at promoting fairness and efficiency in criminal trials. The justice believed that such disclosure rules could prevent surprise tactics, allow for proper investigation of claims, and reduce perjury or false testimony risks. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential impact on states' ability to manage their own court procedures if similar laws were invalidated based on this ruling.