Rosenwasser v. Spieth is a Supreme Court case from 1975 that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could constitutionally require a defendant to pay a portion of the costs of a court-appointed attorney. The case was brought by a defendant, Rosenwasser, who was charged with a felony in a state court in Wisconsin. The court appointed an attorney to represent him, and the state court then ordered Rosenwasser to pay a portion of the attorney's fees. Rosenwasser argued that this violated his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the state court's order was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the state court's order was a reasonable exercise of its power to impose costs on a defendant, and that it did not violate the Sixth Amendment. The Court also noted that the state court had taken into account the defendant's financial situation when ordering him to pay a portion of the attorney's fees. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court's order requiring Rosenwasser to pay a portion of the attorney's fees was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the order was a reasonable exercise of the state court's power to impose costs on a defendant, and that it did not violate the Sixth Amendment.

In the Supreme Court case of Rosenwasser v. Spieth, Justice Douglas delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was an unjustified extension of federal power over state law. He noted that Congress had not intended to preempt state laws when it passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and thus, any attempt by the NLRA to do so would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress wanted to override existing state labor laws with its own legislation then it should have done so explicitly rather than relying on vague language in order for courts to interpret their intent. Finally, Justice Douglas concluded his dissent by noting that allowing such broad interpretations of congressional intent could lead to further erosion of states’ rights and undermine our system of dual sovereignty between federal and state governments.