In the 1970 case Kitchens v. Smith, Warden, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Robert Lee Kitchens who was convicted for burglary and assault with intent to murder by a Texas court. The issue at hand was whether or not Mr. Kitchens had been denied his constitutional right to counsel during his trial as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. He claimed that he did not voluntarily waive this right and thus his conviction should be overturned. The Supreme Court agreed with him stating that while an accused can waive their right to legal representation, it must be done competently and intelligently which they found wasn't clear in this case based on available records from lower courts' proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Kitchens v. Smith, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was based on a misinterpretation of precedent and an overreach of federal authority into state criminal proceedings. He contended that there was no constitutional violation in this case as the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to consult with his counsel before deciding whether or not to testify at trial. Furthermore, he believed that it should be left up to individual states to determine how best they wish their courts operate within constitutional limits rather than having such matters dictated by federal law. In essence, Justice Harlan’s dissent emphasized respect for state autonomy in managing its own judicial affairs and cautioned against unnecessary intervention by the Supreme Court.