Fuller v. Oregon
The Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to court-appointed defense counsel did not violate either the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth Amendment's Assistance of Counsel Clause.
417 U.S. 40 · No. 73-5280 · 1973 term · Burger Court
Decided May 20, 1974 · argued Mar 26, 1974
Civil rights · Indigents: costs or filing fees
Majority opinion: Potter Stewart
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Fuller lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Oregon appellate court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Fuller was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Oregon's statute allowing for the recoupment of costs related to court-appointed defense counsel did not violate either the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or the Sixth Amendment's Assistance of Counsel Clause. The statute required convicted defendants who were indigent at the time of their trial, but later acquired financial means, to repay the costs of their court-appointed lawyer and investigator.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1973 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Potter StewartWrote the majority opinion
William DouglasWrote a concurrence
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Thurgood MarshallWrote a dissent
William BrennanJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- FullerIndigent defendant
- Respondent
- OregonState (Oregon)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently, and the question was important
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 20, 1974DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Fuller lost.
- Mar 26, 1974ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently, and the question was important.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Oregon appellate court: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Oregon trial court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
14 other argued cases since 1946 on indigents: costs or filing fees, newest first.
- Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez140 S. Ct. 1721Jun 8, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1721Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Bruce v. Samuels577 U.S. 1021Jan 12, 2016 · 577 U.S. 1021Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Coleman v. Tollefson575 U.S. 532May 18, 2015 · 575 U.S. 532Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- M. L. B. v. S. L. J., Individually and As Next Friend of the Minor Children, S. L. J. and M. L. J., et ux.519 U.S. 102Dec 16, 1996 · 519 U.S. 102Civil rights6–36–3 band
- George F. Denton, Director of Corrections of California, et al. v. Mike Hernandez504 U.S. 25May 4, 1992 · 504 U.S. 25Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Little v. Streater452 U.S. 1Jun 1, 1981 · 452 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Kras409 U.S. 434Jan 10, 1973 · 409 U.S. 434Civil rights5–45–4 band
- James, Judicial Administrator, et al. v. Strange407 U.S. 128Jun 12, 1972 · 407 U.S. 128Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Huffman v. Boersen406 U.S. 337May 15, 1972 · 406 U.S. 337Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Schilb et al. v. Kuebel et al.404 U.S. 357Dec 20, 1971 · 404 U.S. 357Civil rights4–36–3 band
- Boddie et al. v. Connecticut et al.401 U.S. 371Mar 2, 1971 · 401 U.S. 371Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Smith v. Bennett, Warden365 U.S. 708Apr 17, 1961 · 365 U.S. 708Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Burns v. Ohio360 U.S. 252Jun 15, 1959 · 360 U.S. 252Civil rights6–27–2 band
- Adkins, Administratrix, v. E. I. DuPONT de Nemours & Co., Inc. United States, Intervenor335 U.S. 331Nov 22, 1948 · 335 U.S. 331Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.