In Smith v. State of Texas, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving racial discrimination in jury selection. Robert Smith, an African American man convicted for murder by an all-white jury in Texas, appealed his conviction arguing that black citizens were systematically excluded from juries due to their race. The court found that while there was no explicit law barring blacks from serving on juries in Texas at the time, discriminatory practices during jury selection had effectively achieved this result. The court held that such exclusion violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reversed Smith's conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. State of Texas, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage was fundamentally flawed. He contended that such laws were not only discriminatory but also violated individuals' constitutional rights to marry whomever they chose, regardless of race. Furthermore, he asserted that these laws served no legitimate public interest and were merely an attempt by states to enforce racial purity through legal means. This view was in stark contrast with the majority's belief that states had a right to regulate marriages within their borders as they saw fit. Holmes believed this interpretation allowed for unjust discrimination under the guise of state sovereignty.