In the 1970 case Boddie v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot deny a person access to divorce proceedings solely because they are unable to pay court fees or costs for service of process. The plaintiffs were welfare recipients who could not afford these expenses and argued that their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by this requirement. The Court agreed, holding that since marriage is a relationship recognized and regulated by law, individuals must have access to legal means of altering or dissolving it regardless of their financial status. This decision emphasized the importance of equal protection under law and established precedent regarding fee waivers for indigent litigants in civil cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Boddie v. Connecticut, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to require states to waive court fees for indigent individuals seeking a divorce was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that this ruling effectively forced state courts to provide free services, which could lead to financial strain and potential insolvency. Furthermore, he believed it was not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to dictate how states should allocate their resources or manage their budgets. Additionally, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment; he did not believe these rights extended so far as requiring states to subsidize civil litigation costs for those unable afford them.