In the case of Jay Shawn Johnson v. California, 2004, Johnson challenged his conviction for murder and attempted murder arguing that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors was racially discriminatory in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986). The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that he had failed to establish a prima facie case under Batson because he did not show an inference that prospective jurors were excluded on account of race. The court held that California’s “more likely than not” standard is at odds with the prima facie requirement established by Batson which only necessitates raising an inference of discrimination, rather than proving it more likely than not. Therefore, while this ruling upheld Johnson's conviction, it also clarified standards for establishing racial bias in jury selection.

In the dissenting opinion for Jay Shawn Johnson v. California, Justice O'Connor argued that the court's decision to apply strict scrutiny to all racial classifications in prisons could potentially undermine prison administration and safety. She emphasized that while racial discrimination is generally unacceptable, it may be necessary within a prison context due to unique security concerns. The majority’s application of strict scrutiny fails to consider these practical realities faced by prison administrators who are tasked with maintaining order and preventing violence among inmates from different races or gangs. Additionally, she expressed concern about the potential implications of this ruling on other areas where race might be considered for legitimate reasons such as housing assignments or work detail placements within prisons.