In the case of United States Department of Justice et al. v. Provenzano, 1984, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal prisoner does not have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during discretionary appeals on parole decisions. The court held that due process rights do not extend to prisoners seeking parole because these hearings are part of the administrative process rather than judicial proceedings and therefore do not require legal representation for fairness. Anthony Provenzano was serving time in federal prison and had been denied parole multiple times; he argued his lack of legal counsel at those hearings violated his Fifth Amendment rights. However, the court disagreed stating that while inmates have a liberty interest in their conditional freedom once granted parole, they don't possess an inherent right to be conditionally released before end term.

In the dissenting opinion for the United States Department of Justice et al. v. Provenzano case, it was argued that Anthony Provenzano's Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was compelled to produce subpoenaed records before a grand jury without being granted immunity from prosecution based on those documents' contents. The dissenting justices believed that this action constituted self-incrimination, which is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Fisher v. United States, arguing that in Fisher, there had been no compulsion involved and therefore it did not apply to this case where Provenzano was forced to submit his records under threat of contempt charges if he refused.