In Bearden v. Georgia, 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a person's probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay a fine and make restitution if they have made sufficient bona fide efforts to do so and were unable to pay due to poverty. The case involved Danny Bearden who was convicted of burglary and theft by receiving stolen property in Georgia. He was sentenced with probation on the condition he pays fines and restitution but his probation was later revoked because he could not afford it after losing his job. The court held that revoking an individual’s probation for inability to pay violates the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment as it is fundamentally unfair to punish someone more harshly based on their financial status.

In the dissenting opinion for Bearden v. Georgia, Justice O'Connor argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider whether a defendant's inability to pay was willful or not before revoking probation. She contended that this failure could potentially lead to unjust outcomes where defendants who genuinely cannot afford their fines are imprisoned while those who can but choose not to pay avoid such punishment. Furthermore, she expressed concern over the lack of clear guidelines provided by the majority on how courts should determine if a defendant has made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay their fines and restitution orders. This ambiguity, she warned, could result in inconsistent applications of justice across different jurisdictions.