In the case of Ham v. South Carolina (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's constitutional rights were violated when his request to question jurors about potential racial bias was denied during jury selection process, also known as voir dire. The petitioner, Ham, an African American civil rights activist in South Carolina, had been charged with possession of marijuana and requested that prospective jurors be questioned on whether they held any racial prejudice against him due to his activism and race which could affect their impartiality. The trial court refused this request and he was subsequently convicted by an all-white jury. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that under these specific circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for believing racial prejudices might influence the jury’s verdict; questioning should have been permitted during voir dire to ensure a fair trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Ham v. South Carolina, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to overturn Ham's conviction based on a perceived violation of his constitutional rights was unfounded. He contended that there was no evidence to suggest racial bias among jurors and thus, it was unnecessary for the trial judge to question them about potential prejudice against black defendants or those with beards (as Ham had). Furthermore, he pointed out that many states did not require such questioning during jury selection at all. Therefore, in his view, there were no grounds for claiming a constitutional violation in this case. He also criticized the majority’s reliance on cases involving federal juries as precedent because they didn’t apply directly to state courts due their different rules and procedures regarding jury selection.