In the 1941 case Hill v. Texas, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant Elwood Hill, who was convicted for murder by a Texas court. The main issue at hand was whether or not Mr. Hill's constitutional rights were violated due to systemic exclusion of African Americans from his jury panel during his trial process. The defense argued that this exclusion constituted a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and fair trial principles under Sixth Amendment as it denied him an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of community peers. In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with these arguments and overturned Mr.Hill's conviction on grounds that systematic racial discrimination had indeed occurred in forming his grand and petit juries which contravened both amendments' guarantees thus denying him due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Hill v. Texas, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority had failed to adequately consider whether racial prejudice influenced jury selection in this case. He pointed out that while there were many eligible black jurors in Dallas County where the trial took place, none served on Hill's jury or any other juries during a significant period of time. This pattern suggested systematic exclusion based on race which violated equal protection under law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, he criticized the state's argument that no specific instances of discrimination could be proven because it shifted burden of proof onto defendants who might not have access to necessary evidence due to their disadvantaged position within society and legal system. Therefore, he believed that once prima facie case of discrimination was established as it was here with statistical evidence showing disparity between population and representation on juries, burden should shift onto state to prove absence of discriminatory practices rather than requiring defendant to demonstrate specific acts of bias.