explaining that each of the provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment had a “common purpose”: “securing to a race recently emancipated, a race that through many generations had been held in slavery, all the civil rights” that were enjoyed by white citizens
How later courts described this case
- explaining that each of the provisions of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment had a “common purpose”: “securing to a race recently emancipated, a race that through many generations had been held in slavery, all the civil rights” that were enjoyed by white citizens
- holding that a criminal defendant “‘has no affirmative right to a jury of a particular racial, gender, or age composition’”
- holding that a state denies a defendant equal protection when it purposefully excludes all members of the defendant's race from being eligible to serve as jurors
- explaining that discriminatory exclusion is a “brand upon [the excluded jurors], affixed by the law, an assertion of their inferiority”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported abrogated on other grounds by Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) — not on the Supreme Court's list
100 U.S. 303, 305 , 25 L. Ed. 664 (1879) abrogated on other grounds by Taylor, 419 U.S. 522
Supreme Court of the United StatesJan 21, 197520 citing opinionsother groundsunconfirmed confidenceRead it
The opinion
Mr. Justice Field.
I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case, on the grounds stated in my opinion in Ex parte Virginia (infra, p. 349), and Mr. Justice Clifford concurs with me.