In the case of Leis et al. v. Flynt et al., 1978, two out-of-state attorneys sought to represent Larry Flynt and his corporation in an obscenity trial in Ohio but were denied temporary admission by the state court due to their controversial reputation and previous professional misconducts. The attorneys argued that this denial violated their clients' Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice as well as their own Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the U.S Supreme Court ruled against them stating that neither constitutional provision was applicable here because there is no absolute right for a defendant to be represented by an attorney from another jurisdiction nor do lawyers have a constitutionally protected interest in practicing law in states where they are not licensed.

In the dissenting opinion for Leis et al. v. Flynt et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision to deny Larry Flynt and his lawyer standing in federal court was a misinterpretation of the law. They contended that any person claiming an injury should have access to federal courts if they believe their constitutional rights have been violated. The dissenters believed this right extended even when state disciplinary proceedings were pending against them as it is not guaranteed these proceedings would adequately protect their constitutional rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that abstention was appropriate due to ongoing state proceedings because there wasn’t a substantial claim of unconstitutional administration of state policy presented in this case which could warrant such abstention under Younger v Harris precedent.