# Hernandez v. New York > Supreme Court of the United States · May 28, 1991 · 500 U.S. 352 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432292 ## Case - **Full name:** Hernandez v. New York - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** May 28, 1991 - **Citations:** 500 U.S. 352; 111 S. Ct. 1859; 114 L. Ed. 2d 395; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2913 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Blackmun - **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, Souter, O'Connor, Scalia, Blackmun, Stevens, Marshall - **Cited by:** 3,724 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/9432292 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding a three-step inquiry is necessary to determine whether a party has violated Batson, i.e., used peremptory challenges in a way that violates the Equal Protection Clause: first, the opponent of the strike must make a prima facie showing the proponent of the strike exerci… - holding that under Batson, once the opponent of a peremptory challenge has made out a •prima facie case of racial discrimination (step one), the burden of proof shifts to the one making the challenge to come forward with a race neutral explanation (step two). If a race-neutral… - explaining when evaluating a Batson claim that “[d]iscriminatory purpose . . . implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected . . . a particular course of action at least in part because of, not mer… - recognizing that in the Batson context, “where the defendant has done everything that would be required of him if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case, whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant” (quoting U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. A… - stating that “[a] court address- ing this issue must keep in mind the fundamental prin- ciple that ‘official action will not be held unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. . . . Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is re… ## Opinion text Justice Blackmun, dissenting. I dissent, essentially for the reasons stated by Justice Stevens in Part II of his opinion, post, at 378-379. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432292. Public record. Not legal advice.