Ex parte Virginia was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. The case involved a Virginia law that prohibited African Americans from serving on juries. The Supreme Court held that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case arose when a Virginia court convicted a black man, Thomas J. Hill, of a crime and sentenced him to death. Hill appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury that convicted him was composed entirely of white people, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court agreed with Hill and held that the Virginia law was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Virginia law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it denied African Americans the right to serve on juries. The Court noted that the right to a jury trial was a fundamental right, and that the right could not be denied to African Americans. The Court also noted that the Virginia law was based on racial discrimination, which was prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's decision in Ex parte Virginia was a landmark ruling that established the principle that racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is unconstitutional. The decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.

In Ex Parte Virginia, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state court judge could be prosecuted for denying an African American defendant their right to serve on a jury. The majority opinion held that it was not within the power of Congress or any other branch of government to punish such conduct by indictment and prosecution. Justice Harlan dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had clear authority under Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (now codified as 42 U.S.C § 1983) to provide criminal penalties for those who violated civil rights laws in this manner. He argued further that if states were allowed to violate these laws without consequence then they would become "a lawless despotism" and citizens' constitutional rights would be rendered meaningless. In conclusion, he stated that allowing such violations with impunity would lead only “to anarchy instead of order” and urged his colleagues on the bench not “to shut our eyes against what is passing before us."