In the 1961 case Coppedge v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to appeal their convictions without payment of docket fees or other costs. The appellant, Coppedge, was convicted on multiple counts of violating federal narcotics laws and sought to challenge his conviction in an appellate court but could not afford the associated costs. He petitioned for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (as a poor person), which would waive these costs; however, this was denied by both district and appellate courts because they deemed his claims were not made in "good faith". The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that if any part of the issues raised is found debatable among jurists of reason then it should be allowed as good faith under law. This ruling expanded upon previous decisions regarding access to justice for impoverished individuals by ensuring financial status does not impede one's ability to seek appeals.

In the dissenting opinion for Coppedge v. United States, Justice Clark disagreed with the majority's decision to grant an appeal without payment of fees based on a petitioner’s claim of being indigent and having a non-frivolous argument. He argued that this ruling would open floodgates for frivolous appeals by those claiming poverty, thereby clogging up the judicial system and delaying justice for others. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to decide whether or not someone is too poor to pay court costs; rather, such decisions should be left in hands of lower courts who are more familiar with individual cases and circumstances. Finally, he expressed concern over potential abuse of this new rule by unscrupulous individuals seeking to avoid paying their fair share towards maintaining a functioning legal system.