In the case of Rose, Warden v. Mitchell et al., 1978, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a claim of racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreman could invalidate an indictment and subsequent conviction. The defendants were African American men convicted for murder by an all-white Tennessee jury with a white foreman. They argued that their Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated due to systematic exclusion of blacks from serving as grand jury foremen in the state's history. In its decision, however, the court ruled 5-4 against them stating that while it is unconstitutional to exclude individuals from grand or petit juries on account of race; this principle does not extend automatically to selection processes for positions within these bodies such as foreperson roles because they do not influence deliberations or verdicts significantly enough to affect constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Rose, Warden v. Mitchell et al., Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to extend Batson v. Kentucky (1986) to cases of racial discrimination in grand jury selection was misguided and unsupported by precedent or evidence of widespread abuse. He contended that there were significant differences between a defendant's right to an impartial trial jury and their rights regarding a grand jury, which does not determine guilt or innocence but only whether probable cause exists for prosecution. Furthermore, he believed it would be nearly impossible for defendants to prove systematic exclusion from grand juries due to the secrecy surrounding these proceedings and because they occur before any charges are filed against them. Therefore, he felt this ruling would lead primarily to unnecessary delays in criminal trials without significantly improving fairness or equality in the justice system.