In the case of Randall Wright, Sheriff, Shawano County, Wisconsin v. Joseph L. Van Patten (2007), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wright and reversed a decision by the Seventh Circuit which had granted habeas relief to Van Patten on his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial for first-degree intentional homicide. The court held that because there was no clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C §2254(d)(1) at the time of state-court adjudication on merits, it was not an unreasonable application of federal law for state court to conclude defense counsel's failure to object during prosecution's closing argument did not prejudice defendant so as to deprive him effective assistance under Sixth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Randall Wright, Sheriff, Shawano County, Wisconsin v. Joseph L. Van Patten (2007), Justice Souter argued that the majority's decision to overturn a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. He contended that the defendant had an expectation of privacy when he used his personal computer at home and did not consent to having his online activities monitored by law enforcement officials without a warrant. Furthermore, Justice Souter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as they applied to internet use and digital communications technology.