Mccready v. Virginia was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. The case involved a black man, William Mccready, who was convicted of murder in Virginia and sentenced to death. Mccready argued that his conviction was based on racial discrimination, as the jury that convicted him was composed entirely of white people. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mccready, finding that the exclusion of black people from the jury violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the exclusion of black people from the jury was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as it denied Mccready the right to a jury of his peers. The Court also held that the exclusion of black people from the jury was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it denied Mccready the right to a fair trial. The Court's ruling in Mccready v. Virginia was a landmark decision in the fight against racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. The Court's ruling established that the exclusion of black people from juries was unconstitutional and that the criminal justice system must be open to all citizens regardless of race. The Court's ruling in Mccready v. Virginia set a precedent for future cases involving racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.

In MCCREADY v. VIRGINIA, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited out-of-state corporations from selling their products in Virginia without first obtaining a license violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause and upheld the law. However, Justice Harlan dissented from this decision and argued that such laws were unconstitutional because they interfered with interstate commerce by creating an undue burden on companies wishing to do business across state lines. He further argued that states should not be allowed to pass laws which discriminate against out-of-state businesses or create barriers for them when engaging in interstate commerce as this would lead to economic protectionism and ultimately hurt consumers by limiting competition among producers within different states. Ultimately, he concluded that while states may have some power over regulating certain aspects of intrastate trade, they cannot interfere with interstate commerce through discriminatory legislation like what was seen here in Virginia's licensing requirement for out-of-state corporations doing business there.