In the case of Ortwein et al. v. Schwab et al., 1972, a group of welfare recipients in Oregon challenged the state's requirement that they pay a $25 filing fee to appeal decisions about their benefits. The plaintiffs argued that this fee violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an economic barrier to access to justice for poor individuals. However, the U.S Supreme Court ruled against them, upholding Oregon's law and stating that there was no constitutional right to appellate review at all; therefore states could impose reasonable conditions on such appeals without violating equal protection principles. This decision reinforced previous rulings establishing limits on how far courts would go in recognizing poverty as a basis for claiming discrimination under equal protection laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Ortwein et al. v. Schwab et al., Justice Douglas argued that the imposition of a filing fee as a prerequisite to judicial review of welfare benefits was unconstitutional, violating equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that access to courts should not be limited by one's ability to pay and emphasized that this case involved fundamental interests - sustenance and survival - which are more significant than property rights typically protected by due process. The majority’s decision, he believed, created an unjust barrier for impoverished individuals seeking legal redress in matters directly affecting their livelihoods.