In the landmark case In re Gault et al., 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court established that juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults such as the right to timely notification of charges, right to confront witnesses, right against self-incrimination and right to counsel. The case involved Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old probationer who was sentenced by an Arizona court to six years in state industrial school for making an obscene phone call without any notice of his legal rights or representation by counsel. His parents filed a habeas corpus petition arguing their son's constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed with them and ruled that juvenile defendants are entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause to receive fair treatment similar to adult defendants.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Gault et al., Justice Stewart, joined by Justice White, argued that the majority's decision to extend certain constitutional protections to juveniles was misguided. They contended that juvenile courts were not intended to be adversarial systems like adult criminal courts but rather rehabilitative institutions aimed at serving the best interests of children. The dissenters feared that imposing formal procedures would undermine this purpose and transform juvenile proceedings into full-blown criminal trials. They also expressed concern about potential practical difficulties in implementing these new requirements, such as providing counsel for all juveniles regardless of their financial circumstances or ensuring a speedy trial when dealing with young offenders who may lack maturity and understanding of legal processes. Overall, they believed that while some changes might be necessary to improve fairness in juvenile justice system, extending all rights afforded under due process clause was an overreach.