In the 1969 case of Kelley v. Arizona, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state could require an indigent defendant to pay for a transcript of his trial in order to appeal his conviction. The petitioner, Kelley, had been convicted of robbery and sentenced to prison but lacked funds necessary for obtaining a transcript required by Arizona law for filing an appeal. He argued that this requirement violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against poor defendants who couldn't afford such costs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kelley, holding that states cannot condition appeals on payment for transcripts or other court-related fees if those charges are unaffordable to indigent defendants. This decision underscored the principle that access to justice should not be dependent on one's financial status and reinforced protections against wealth-based discrimination within legal proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kelley v. Arizona argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring mandatory life sentences without parole for certain repeat offenders was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this ruling violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as it failed to consider individual circumstances or allow for judicial discretion in sentencing. They contended that such an inflexible approach could lead to grossly disproportionate punishments, particularly when applied to non-violent offenses or those committed by juveniles. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential racial disparities in enforcement and criticized the majority for deferring too much power to legislatures at the expense of judicial independence.