In the 1937 case Hale v. Kentucky, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of an African American man named George Hale who was convicted for murder by an all-white jury in a Kentucky court. The defense argued that black people were systematically excluded from serving on juries, violating his constitutional rights to equal protection under the law and due process as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. The state of Kentucky countered this argument by stating that there were no laws explicitly barring black individuals from jury service; however, it was found that no African Americans had served on a jury for over fifteen years despite their presence within the community. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that while there may not have been explicit racial discrimination written into law regarding juror selection processes, clear patterns of exclusion based on race still constituted unconstitutional behavior.

In the dissenting opinion for Hale v. Kentucky, Justice Benjamin Cardozo argued that the exclusion of African Americans from juries was a violation of their constitutional rights. He contended that while there may not have been explicit discrimination in this particular case, the systematic exclusion of black jurors over time indicated an implicit bias within the system. This bias violated both equal protection under law and due process clauses as it denied defendants a fair trial by jury composed of peers without regard to race or color. Furthermore, he asserted that such practices undermined public confidence in judicial proceedings and thus needed to be rectified immediately.