In the case of Vasquez, Warden v. Hillery in 1985, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to grant habeas corpus relief to Roosevelt Hillery, who had been convicted of murder and robbery by an all-white grand jury in California. The Court found that racial discrimination occurred during the selection process for this grand jury which violated Hillery’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Despite no evidence suggesting prejudice at his trial or any indication that he was not guilty of these crimes, it was ruled that such racial bias during indictment proceedings warranted automatic reversal regardless of whether it affected final judgement or not. This ruling reaffirmed previous decisions stating that discriminatory practices within judicial processes are unconstitutional and can undermine public confidence in outcomes reached by courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Vasquez, Warden v. Hillery (1985), Justice White argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it failed to consider whether racial discrimination in grand jury selection had prejudiced the defendant's case. He contended that there was no evidence of prejudice against Hillery and thus, his conviction should not be overturned solely based on a procedural error in jury selection. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for applying an automatic reversal rule without considering if this error actually affected the fairness of Hillery’s trial or undermined confidence in its outcome. In essence, Justice White believed that any constitutional violation related to grand jury composition should not automatically result in reversing a conviction unless it can be shown that such violation materially influenced the proceedings.