In the 1966 case Anders v. California, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a court-appointed attorney's obligation to assist their client doesn't end if they believe an appeal would be frivolous. The case involved Clarence Earl Gideon who was convicted of felony theft in California and wished to file an appeal. His court-appointed lawyer, however, found no grounds for appeal and submitted a brief stating as much before withdrawing from representation. This action was approved by the state appellate court which then affirmed Gideon’s conviction without appointing new counsel or reviewing his case further themselves. The U.S Supreme Court unanimously reversed this decision on grounds it violated Gideon’s constitutional right to legal assistance under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. They held that even when an attorney believes there is no merit for appeal, they must still provide thorough support until relieved by the appellate court itself after independent review of record has been conducted to determine if any legal points exist.

In the dissenting opinion for Anders v. California, Justice Tom C. Clark argued that the majority's decision placed an undue burden on court-appointed attorneys to pursue appeals even when they believe there is no merit in doing so. He contended that this would lead to a waste of judicial resources and potentially harm defendants by raising false hopes of successful appeals. Additionally, he expressed concern about the potential ethical dilemma faced by lawyers forced to argue cases they believe are groundless or frivolous. Justice Clark also questioned whether such a requirement was necessary given existing safeguards for indigent defendants, including their ability to file briefs on their own behalf and request new counsel if dissatisfied with their current representation.