In the case of Schilb et al. v. Kuebel et al., 1971, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether a requirement for bail bond fees in Illinois was constitutional or not. The petitioner, Robert Schilb had been arrested and charged with a misdemeanor in Illinois and posted bail to secure his release from jail while awaiting trial. After being acquitted, he sought to recover the percentage of his bail that was retained by the county as a fee but was denied recovery under state law which allowed counties to retain up to 1% of all bonds posted as part of their general revenue fund. Schilb argued this violated both equal protection and due process clauses because it discriminated against those who could not afford cash bail without using a surety (a person who guarantees another's performance), since they would lose money even if found innocent. The court held that there were rational reasons for treating different types of bails differently - such as administrative costs associated with sureties - so no violation occurred under Equal Protection Clause; also, since notice about potential loss is given before posting bond, Due Process wasn't violated either.

In the dissenting opinion for SCHILB et al. v. KUEBEL et al., Justice Hugo Black argued that Illinois' bail bond system was unconstitutional as it discriminated against poor defendants who could not afford to pay a non-refundable fee to secure their release from jail before trial. He contended that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under law regardless of wealth or social status. Furthermore, he believed that such a system also infringed upon an individual's right to liberty without due process of law by keeping them incarcerated solely based on their inability to pay bail fees rather than any legal judgment about their guilt or innocence. In his view, these aspects made Illinois' bail bond scheme inherently unfair and unjust towards poorer citizens.