In the case of Williams et al. v. Brown et al., 1979, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that allowed for different treatment of juveniles and adults in terms of pretrial detention violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were juveniles who had been detained prior to trial under an Ohio statute which permitted such detention if it was deemed in "the best interests" of the child or community, while adults charged with similar crimes could only be detained if they posed a flight risk or threat to others. The court held that this differential treatment did not violate equal protection principles because there are inherent differences between children and adults which justify different standards being applied by states when considering their detention before trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams et al. v. Brown et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to uphold California's Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) was flawed because it failed to consider whether ISL provided a meaningful opportunity for parole consideration as required by due process of law. The dissenting justices believed that without clear guidelines or standards governing parole decisions under ISL, inmates were left in a state of uncertainty about their prospects for release which could lead to arbitrary and capricious decision-making on part of the Parole Board. They also pointed out that other states had successfully implemented systems with clearer criteria and procedures ensuring fairer treatment of prisoners up for parole consideration while still maintaining public safety concerns. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that such requirements would be impractical or unworkable in California.