In the case of Long v. District Court of Iowa in and for Lee County, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state court's refusal to provide an indigent defendant with a trial transcript for appeal purposes violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law. The petitioner, Robert F. Long was convicted on charges of larceny in Iowa State Courts but was unable to afford a trial transcript necessary for an appeal process because he lacked financial resources. He requested one at public expense which was denied by both district and supreme courts of Iowa stating it as not their statutory obligation unless in capital offenses or when ordered by Supreme Court itself. The U.S Supreme court reversed this decision arguing that providing such transcripts is essential for thorough appellate review thus ensuring fair treatment regardless of economic status aligning with principles embodied within Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Long v. District Court of Iowa, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to apply retroactively a rule requiring search warrants for felony arrests in private residences was inappropriate and unjustified. He contended that such retrospective application would disrupt law enforcement practices and undermine previous convictions obtained under good faith reliance on existing laws at the time of arrest. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this ruling could potentially lead to an influx of appeals from individuals convicted prior to this change in legal interpretation. In his view, changes in constitutional interpretations should only be applied prospectively unless there are compelling reasons otherwise; something which he did not see present in this case.