In the case of James, Judicial Administrator, et al. v. Strange (1971), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Kansas' recoupment statute was unconstitutional because it discriminated against indigent defendants who were provided with counsel by the state in criminal cases. The law required these individuals to repay their legal fees if they later acquired funds but did not provide them with protections given to other civil debtors such as exemptions for wages and property. This violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment since it treated similarly situated persons differently without a rational basis for doing so. The court held that while states have a legitimate interest in recovering costs from those able to pay, this should not be pursued through means which unnecessarily burden or discriminate against impoverished defendants.

In the dissenting opinion for James v. Strange, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that Kansas's recoupment statute was discriminatory and violated equal protection under the law. He pointed out that the statute treated those who had been provided with legal defense services differently from other recipients of public assistance by not allowing them to keep basic necessities while repaying their debt to the state. Furthermore, he noted that this policy could deter individuals from exercising their constitutional right to counsel if they knew they would be subjected to such harsh repayment terms. Therefore, he believed it was unconstitutional as it disproportionately affected indigent defendants and created a chilling effect on one's right to counsel.