In the case of Gagnon, Warden v. Scarpelli in 1972, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a probationer or parolee has a right to legal counsel during revocation proceedings under certain circumstances. The defendant, Gerard J. Scarpelli was on probation for forging checks when he was charged with committing burglary and his probation was revoked without any hearing or representation by an attorney. He appealed this decision arguing it violated his due process rights as outlined in Morrissey v Brewer (1972). The court agreed with him but stopped short of guaranteeing all defendants the right to counsel at such hearings; instead they suggested a case-by-case approach where if complex issues were involved then an attorney might be necessary.

In the Gagnon v. Scarpelli case, Justice Douglas dissented, arguing that probationers and parolees should be granted the right to counsel at revocation hearings. He believed that these individuals were often disadvantaged and lacked the necessary legal knowledge to adequately defend themselves in court proceedings. Furthermore, he argued that without representation, they could not effectively cross-examine witnesses or present evidence on their behalf - a clear violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Douglas also pointed out inconsistencies with majority's decision where it allowed for discretionary appointment of counsel based on complexity of issues or personal characteristics of probationer/parolee; this approach was seen as arbitrary and potentially discriminatory by him.