The U.S. Supreme Court case Wilkinson v. Austin (2004) dealt with the constitutionality of Ohio's supermax prison, a facility designed to house inmates in long-term solitary confinement under extremely restrictive conditions. The plaintiffs, several prisoners at the facility, argued that their assignment to this institution without an opportunity for review violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the defendants, stating that while inmates do have a liberty interest in avoiding assignment to the supermax prison because its conditions impose significant hardship compared with ordinary prisons and affect parole eligibility, Ohio’s procedures for assigning inmates did not violate due process rights as they provided sufficient notice and an opportunity for rebuttal.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilkinson v. Austin, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to uphold due process rights for inmates placed in supermax prisons was misguided. He contended that these facilities were not significantly different from other high-security prisons and therefore did not warrant additional protections under the Constitution. Moreover, he asserted that prisoners do not have a liberty interest in avoiding placement in such institutions because they are already deprived of their freedom through incarceration. Scalia also criticized the majority's reliance on Ohio state law to establish a liberty interest, arguing this approach blurred federal and state jurisdictions and could lead to inconsistent rulings across states with differing laws regarding prison conditions.