# Neal v. Delaware

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 18, 1881 · 103 U.S. 370

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9417284

## Case

- **Full name:** Neal v. Delaware
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 18, 1881
- **Citations:** 103 U.S. 370; 26 L. Ed. 567; 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2129
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Waite
- **Judges:** Harlan, Waite, Field
- **Cited by:** 376 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9417284

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that Delaware’s practice of restricting juries to '"free white male citizens, of the age of twenty-two years and upwards” was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
- explaining that precursor to section 1981 was “constitutional (continued…

## Opinion text

Mr. Chief Justice Waite.
I am unable to concur in this judgment. We said in Virginia v. Rives ( 100 U. S. 313 ), that the mere fact that no person of color had been allowed to serve on juries where colored men were interested, was hot enough to show that they had been discriminated against because of .their race. That is all that was shown in this case on the motions to quash, except that the accused declared in his affidavit that the exclusion of colored men from juries in Delaware had been because of their race. I cannot believe that the refusal of the court, on such an affidavit unsupported by any evidence, to quash the indictment and the panel of jurors because he had been discriminated against on account of his race, was such an error in law as to justify a reversal of the judgment. As the motions had once been submitted on his affidavit. alone and decided, it rested in the discretion of the court to allow a rehearing and permit further evidence to be introduced. The refusal of the court to do so cannot, as I think, be assigned for error here.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9417284. Public record. Not legal advice.