In Scott v. Illinois (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant is not entitled to court-appointed counsel when charged with an offense for which imprisonment upon conviction is authorized but not mandatory, unless they are actually sentenced to serve time in prison. The case involved Michael Lee Scott who was convicted of shoplifting and fined $50 without being provided legal representation during his trial. He appealed on the grounds that this violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel as interpreted by Gideon v Wainwright (1963) and Argersinger v Hamlin (1972). However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that free legal representation must be offered only if incarceration is imposed.

In the dissenting opinion for Scott v. Illinois, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision that a defendant is only entitled to counsel if they are sentenced to imprisonment. He argued that this ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions and violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal prosecutions. He believed that any person facing charges where imprisonment is an authorized punishment should be provided legal representation, regardless of whether or not incarceration ultimately becomes part of their sentence. This would ensure fairness in all proceedings and protect individuals from potential abuses within the justice system. Furthermore, he expressed concern about leaving such a critical determination up to judges who may have varying interpretations on when it’s necessary to appoint counsel.