Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter joined, dissented. They argued that only "prudential considerations" rather than constitutional ones prevented allowing the attorneys to assert the prisoners' rights. They said the attorneys had an economic interest in the issue because they "would earn less for representation of indigent appellants than they earned in years prior to the cutback on state-funded appeals." They also asserted that the distinction between existing and prospecting clients was unwarranted since in many cases prospective sellers (such as the beer vendor in "Craig", the schools in "Pierce", etc.) were allowed to assert the rights of hypothetical customers. As for the hindrance issue, they took issue with the majority's assertion that indigent, uneducated defendants would not face serious obstacles to acting "pro se".