In Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a jury selection process which systematically excludes individuals based on their economic status is unconstitutional, violating the fair cross-section requirement of the Sixth Amendment. The plaintiff, Thiel, was a laborer who sued Southern Pacific Company for personal injuries sustained while working for them. During jury selection in his trial at district court level, daily wage earners were intentionally excluded from serving as jurors due to an assumption they would be disinclined towards service because of loss of pay. This resulted in a verdict favoring Southern Pacific Company and led to Thiel's appeal arguing this exclusion violated his right to an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross section of community members under the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was based on an incorrect interpretation of federal law regarding jury selection. He contended that while it is important to ensure a cross-section of society in juries, this does not mean every group must be represented proportionally or even at all times. The exclusion of daily wage earners from jury service did not necessarily violate their rights or result in bias against the plaintiff, as there were still other jurors who could represent these interests adequately. Furthermore, he believed that such matters should be left largely to local courts' discretion rather than being dictated by federal rules which may not take into account specific regional circumstances and needs.