In the case of Jay Shawn Johnson v. California, 2003, Johnson challenged the constitutionality of a jury selection procedure in California that allowed prosecutors to use peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors without providing an explanation. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against Johnson, upholding the state's policy on peremptory challenges. The court held that there was no constitutional requirement for prosecutors to provide race-neutral explanations for each juror they dismissed during pretrial proceedings unless there was evidence suggesting racial bias or discrimination in their decisions. This ruling reaffirmed previous rulings by the court which stated that while systematic exclusion based on race is unconstitutional under Batson v Kentucky (1986), individual dismissals do not require justification unless it can be proven they are racially motivated.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnson v. California, Justice O'Connor argued that the court's decision to apply strict scrutiny to all racial classifications in prison settings was too broad and could potentially undermine prison administration. She contended that while racial discrimination is generally unacceptable, there are certain circumstances within prisons where race-based decisions might be necessary for safety and orderliness. For example, she pointed out that gang violence often breaks down along racial lines; therefore, considering race when assigning cellmates can prevent violent incidents from occurring. Furthermore, she expressed concern about how this ruling would affect other areas of prison management where race may play a role such as preventing racially motivated attacks or riots. In her view, applying strict scrutiny across the board without considering these unique challenges faced by prisons could lead to more harm than good.