In the case of Michael Rivera v. Illinois, 2008, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state court's decision to deny a defendant's peremptory challenge (a rejection of a prospective juror without needing to give reason) does not necessarily violate the defendant's constitutional rights and warrant automatic reversal of conviction if it is later determined that the challenged juror was not biased. The case arose when Michael Rivera was convicted for murder in an Illinois court after his attorney’s peremptory challenge against one potential juror was denied by the trial judge. On appeal, he argued this denial violated his right to an impartial jury under both federal and state law. However, SCOTUS held that even if there had been error in denying Rivera’s peremptory strike request as claimed under Illinois law, it did not automatically mean there had been violation of federal constitution since no actual bias from said juror could be proven.

In the dissenting opinion for Michael Rivera v. Illinois, Justice Ginsburg argued that a trial court's error in refusing to replace an allegedly biased juror should not be considered harmless if it results in prejudice against the defendant. She contended that such errors undermine the fairness of trials and violate defendants' constitutional rights to impartial juries. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that state courts can adequately protect these rights through their own review processes, arguing instead for federal oversight to ensure uniformity and consistency across states. In her view, this case represented a clear instance where bias could have influenced jury deliberations and potentially affected its verdict; therefore, she believed it warranted reversal on appeal.