In the 1983 case Thigpen, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al. v. Roberts, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a habeas corpus petition from an inmate who claimed that his constitutional rights were violated due to racial discrimination in jury selection during his trial. The petitioner argued that prosecutors systematically excluded black jurors which resulted in him being convicted by an all-white jury despite being African American himself. The District Court dismissed this claim without holding an evidentiary hearing and the Fifth Circuit affirmed this decision on appeal. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court it was held that if such allegations are made about racial discrimination in jury selection then they must be thoroughly investigated with a full evidentiary hearing as per established precedent (Swain v Alabama). Therefore, it was ruled that both lower courts had erred by dismissing these serious claims without conducting proper inquiry or allowing for presentation of evidence supporting them. Consequently, the case was remanded back to district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Thigpen v. Roberts, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief based on a racially discriminatory jury selection process did not align with precedent or federal law. The dissenting justices believed there was insufficient evidence of systematic exclusion of black jurors in this case and emphasized that occasional disparities in racial representation do not necessarily indicate discrimination. They also pointed out that the petitioner had failed to provide comparative data about other cases from his jurisdiction, which is typically required to prove systemic bias under Swain v. Alabama (1965). Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), arguing it should only apply prospectively rather than retroactively as decided by the court.