In the Douglas et al. v. California case of 1962, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that states are required to provide counsel for defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford their own attorneys during their first appeal. The appellants, two indigent convicts from California, had requested state-appointed counsel to assist them with their appeals but were denied by the State District Court of Appeal under a rule which only provided such assistance if it appeared that there would be arguable merit in an appeal upon examination of the trial record by appellate judges. The Supreme Court held this practice unconstitutional as it violated equal protection principles and did not guarantee due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against poor defendants while favoring those who could afford legal representation for an initial appeal.

In the dissenting opinion for Douglas et al. v. California, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to grant an automatic right to counsel on a first appeal as of right was not constitutionally required and went beyond what was necessary for fairness in criminal proceedings. He contended that due process does not guarantee absolute equality or precisely equal advantages but rather ensures fundamental fairness in judicial procedures. The justice believed that states should have flexibility in determining how best to ensure fair trials and appeals within their jurisdictions without federal interference unless there is clear evidence of unfairness or inequality before the law. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on state courts' efficiency and effectiveness due to increased caseloads from automatically granting counsel for all indigent defendants appealing convictions.