In the case of Tharpe v. Sellers, Warden (2017), Keith Tharpe, a black man sentenced to death in Georgia for murder, appealed his sentence on the grounds that one of the jurors was racially biased. The juror had signed an affidavit years after the trial stating he believed "there are two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. Niggers," and that he thought Tharpe fell into the latter category which influenced his vote for a death verdict. Despite this evidence, lower courts denied Tharpe's appeal without considering whether racial bias affected jury deliberations due to procedural rules limiting consideration of new evidence following conviction. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Tharpe by a 5-3 majority decision ordering lower courts to review their decisions not based on procedural rules but rather if racial bias played any role during jury deliberation process violating Mr.Tharpes' constitutional rights under Equal Protection Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Tharpe v. Sellers, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision to remand the case was based on a misinterpretation of procedural rules and an overemphasis on racially biased remarks made by one juror after trial. He contended that this focus ignored key facts: first, Tharpe had failed to demonstrate that racial bias affected his sentencing; second, he had not provided any new evidence since his last federal appeal; third, he did not meet standards set in previous cases for proving prejudice from juror misconduct. Justice Thomas also criticized the majority's reliance on an affidavit containing racist statements as proof of bias during deliberations when it should have been considered unreliable hearsay under established legal principles. In sum, he believed their ruling expanded habeas corpus relief beyond its intended scope and undermined state court decisions without sufficient cause.