Royall v. Virginia was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of racial discrimination in the courtroom. The case was brought by a black man, John Royall, who was denied a jury trial in a Virginia court because of his race. Royall argued that the Virginia court's decision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with Royall, ruling that the Virginia court's decision was unconstitutional. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from denying jury trials to individuals on the basis of race. The Court also held that the Virginia court's decision violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects citizens from being denied the same rights and privileges as other citizens. The Court's decision in Royall v. Virginia was a landmark ruling that established the principle that all citizens, regardless of race, are entitled to the same rights and privileges under the law. The decision was an important step in the fight for racial equality in the United States.

In Royall v. Virginia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that prohibited African Americans from entering into contracts with white persons violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because there were no racial distinctions in the law and thus no discrimination against any race or class of people. However, Justice Harlan dissented on this ruling, arguing that while there may have been no explicit racial distinction in the law itself, its application had an undeniable discriminatory effect on African Americans by preventing them from engaging in certain activities solely based on their race. He argued further that such laws could only be justified if they served some compelling public interest which outweighed any potential harm caused by denying equal protection to a particular group of individuals; however, he found no such justification for this particular statute and concluded that it should be struck down as unconstitutional.