In Brooks v. Missouri, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a state could constitutionally require a defendant to be present in court during the trial. The case arose when the defendant, Brooks, was convicted of murder in a Missouri court without being present in the courtroom. Brooks argued that his conviction violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not require a defendant to be present in court during the trial. The Court reasoned that the right to due process was satisfied by the presence of counsel and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court also noted that the defendant had the right to be present in court if he chose to do so. The Court's decision in Brooks v. Missouri established that a defendant's right to due process was not violated by a conviction in absentia. The Court's ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the right to due process.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Brooks v. Missouri, arguing that the state of Missouri had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying a black man his right to vote without due process of law. He argued that since voting was an inherent right, it could not be taken away from any citizen without proper notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Furthermore, he stated that even if there were some legal basis for taking away someone's voting rights, such as criminal conviction or mental incapacity, this should still require due process of law with adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before being denied their fundamental right to vote. Justice Harlan concluded by asserting that states must respect citizens' constitutional rights regardless of race or color; otherwise they would be violating both federal laws and basic principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution.