Stone v. Mississippi 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, John Stone, who was convicted of murder in Mississippi and sentenced to death. Stone argued that his conviction was unconstitutional because the jury that convicted him was composed entirely of white people. The Supreme Court agreed with Stone and held that the exclusion of black people from the jury violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court noted that the exclusion of black people from the jury was based on racial discrimination and that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court also noted that the exclusion of black people from the jury was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the exclusion of black people from the jury was unconstitutional and that Stone's conviction must be overturned. The Court also held that the exclusion of black people from the jury was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and that the state of Mississippi must take steps to ensure that black people are included in future juries. This case was an important step in the fight against racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stone v. Mississippi, arguing that the state statute at issue violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority held that a law which prohibited any person from publishing or circulating "any paper, pamphlet, circular or handbill" without first obtaining permission from local authorities was constitutional because it did not abridge freedom of speech and press as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued instead that such a law constituted an unconstitutional infringement on fundamental rights protected by both federal and state constitutions. He noted that while states have broad powers to regulate public conduct for safety purposes, they cannot do so if it infringes upon basic liberties like free speech and press; thus he concluded that prohibiting individuals from exercising their right to publish materials without prior approval was an unreasonable restriction on liberty which could not be justified under either federal or state laws.