In the case of Ross et al. v. Moffitt, the United States Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants do not have a constitutional right to state-appointed counsel for discretionary appeals or for petitioning for review by a higher court after exhausting all normal appeals. The defendant, an indigent man convicted in North Carolina state courts, had been provided with legal representation during his trial and first appeal as required by law but was denied further assistance when he sought to file additional appeals. He argued this denial violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. However, the Supreme Court disagreed in a 5-4 decision stating that these clauses only guarantee fairness and equality in legal proceedings rather than access to every avenue of appellate review.

In the dissenting opinion for Ross et al. v. Moffitt, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that a defendant's right to counsel should extend beyond their first appeal and include discretionary appeals as well. He contended that the majority's decision failed to recognize the complexity of legal proceedings and overestimated an average person’s ability to navigate them without professional assistance. Marshall believed this ruling would disproportionately affect indigent defendants who could not afford private representation, thereby creating inequality in access to justice based on wealth status. He also expressed concern about potential miscarriages of justice due to unrepresented defendants' inability adequately present their cases at higher appellate levels.