In the case of Adams v. Texas (1979), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a potential juror cannot be excluded from serving on a jury solely because they express general objections to, or conscientious scruples against, capital punishment. The court held that such an exclusion violates a defendant's right to an impartial jury as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. This decision was based on Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) where it was established that jurors could only be excused if they would automatically vote against capital punishment without regard to any evidence presented at trial or if their attitudes toward death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision about guilt.

In the dissenting opinion for Adams v. Texas, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision was an unwarranted intrusion into state court procedures and a misinterpretation of precedent. He contended that the Texas statute in question did not violate the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments as it simply sought to exclude jurors who would be unable to follow their oath due to personal beliefs against capital punishment. Furthermore, he asserted that this case differed from Witherspoon v. Illinois because there was no evidence suggesting biased juries resulted from excluding such individuals in Texas. The justice also criticized the majority for overstepping its bounds by imposing federal standards on states' jury selection processes without clear constitutional mandate or compelling empirical evidence of harm caused by existing practices.