In Duren v. Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state law allowing women to opt out of jury service violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community. The case was brought forward by Billy Duren, who was convicted for first-degree robbery and first-degree murder in Jackson County, Missouri. He argued that his conviction should be overturned because women were underrepresented on both his grand and petit juries due to this exemption policy which resulted in systematic exclusion of potential female jurors. The court agreed with him stating that such systematic exclusion did not comply with "fair-cross section" requirement as it failed to represent distinctive groups in the population which is essential for public confidence in fairness of criminal justice system.

In the dissenting opinion for Duren v. Missouri, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of fair cross-section requirement in jury selection. He argued that while it is important to prevent systematic exclusion of distinctive groups from juries, this does not mean every group must be represented proportionally on each jury panel or venire. The Constitution doesn't require mathematical precision in representation but rather a reasonable degree of fairness and inclusivity. He also noted that women were not excluded from serving on juries; they could serve if they chose to do so without claiming an automatic exemption available under state law at the time - hence there was no systemic exclusion as per his view.