In the case of Anders v. Floyd (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a state's failure to provide an indigent appellant with counsel on discretionary review violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process. The petitioner, Solicitor of Richland County, argued that South Carolina’s system for providing appellate representation was constitutionally deficient because it did not guarantee counsel at all stages of appeal as required by Douglas v. California (1963). However, the respondent contended that since he had been provided with legal assistance during his initial appeal and only denied such aid when seeking further discretionary review from higher courts, no constitutional violation occurred. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Floyd stating that while states are obligated under Douglas to provide counsel for first-tier appeals as a matter of right, they are not similarly compelled to furnish attorneys for subsequent discretionary reviews if those proceedings do not involve fact-finding or development of legal arguments but merely serve as gateways to additional avenues for relief.

In the dissenting opinion for Anders v. Floyd, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to remand the case back to state court for further proceedings. He argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case as it did not involve a federal question or issue of federal law. The petitioner had been provided with an attorney who represented him adequately and competently at trial and on appeal, fulfilling his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were any procedural errors during the post-conviction relief process, they would be matters of state law rather than federal constitutional issues. Therefore, he believed that such alleged errors should have been addressed by South Carolina courts instead of being brought before the U.S Supreme Court under its habeas corpus jurisdiction.