In the case of Shepherd et al. v. New York, 1966, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state could constitutionally require non-resident litigants to post bond for costs as a condition of access to its courts when such requirement is not imposed on resident litigants. The appellants were two non-residents who had been denied access to New York courts because they failed to post security for costs as required by Section 3271 of New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules. They argued that this provision violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that while states have considerable latitude in creating procedures for litigation, these procedures cannot discriminate against nonresidents merely because they are not citizens or residents of that state. The court found Section 3271 unconstitutional since it discriminated between residents and nonresidents in violation of equal protection principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Shepherd et al. v. New York, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to overturn a conviction based on prejudicial pretrial publicity was misguided and set a dangerous precedent. He contended that it is not reasonable or practical to expect complete ignorance about high-profile cases among potential jurors in an age of mass communication, nor should such knowledge automatically disqualify them from serving. Instead, he advocated for more nuanced considerations of bias and impartiality during jury selection processes rather than blanket rules against any prior knowledge of a case's details. Furthermore, he expressed concern that this ruling could lead to unnecessary delays in trials and potentially allow guilty parties to escape justice due simply to media coverage.