Ex parte Royall is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could constitutionally deny a defendant the right to a jury trial in a criminal case. The case involved a man named William Royall, who was charged with the crime of larceny in the state of Virginia. Royall argued that the Virginia court had denied him his right to a jury trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Virginia court had indeed violated Royall's right to a jury trial. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in all criminal cases, and that the Virginia court had no authority to deny Royall this right. The Court further held that the Virginia court's decision was unconstitutional and that Royall should be granted a jury trial. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Virginia court had violated Royall's right to a jury trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court ordered that Royall be granted a jury trial and that the Virginia court's decision be overturned.

In Ex Parte Royall, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Virginia law that excluded African Americans from serving on juries violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that it did not violate the amendment because there was no evidence of racial discrimination in this particular case. However, Justice Harlan dissented and argued that while there may have been no evidence of intentional discrimination in this specific instance, exclusionary laws like those at issue were inherently discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. He further stated that such laws had been used for centuries to deny African Americans their right to equal protection under the law and should be struck down as unconstitutional regardless of any individual circumstances or lack thereof.