In the 1975 case North v. Russell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-lawyer judges can preside over criminal cases in two-tier court systems where a trial de novo is available in the second tier. The case was brought by Charles North, who had been convicted of drunk driving by a police court judge without legal training in Kentucky's two-tier system. He argued this violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process under the Constitution as he was not tried before a legally trained judge initially. However, because Kentucky law allowed for him to appeal for a new trial before a lawyer-judge at Circuit Court level (the second tier), which he did not do, it was held that his constitutional rights were not violated.

In the dissenting opinion for North v. Russell, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's ruling that non-lawyer judges in Kentucky's two-tier system of misdemeanor courts did not violate due process rights. He argued that defendants facing potential imprisonment should have their cases heard by legally trained judges to ensure fair and accurate application of law. He further contended that a defendant’s right to appeal does not rectify this issue as it places an undue burden on those who may lack resources or knowledge to do so effectively. Moreover, he believed such a system could lead to inconsistent rulings and undermine public confidence in the justice system because lay judges might apply laws inconsistently or incorrectly due to their lack of legal training.