Hernandez v. Texas
The Court ruled that a Texas county's total exclusion of Mexican-Americans from jury service for 25 years violated the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equal protection, even though Mexican-Americans were officially classified as "white."
The decision extends equal-protection protection against jury discrimination beyond the Black/white divide, recognizing that any identifiable community group singled out for unequal treatment is entitled to constitutional protection.
“The Fourteenth Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a “two-class theory” — that is, based upon differences between “white” and Negro.”
The Court explains that equal protection covers more than just Black and white racial categories.
How it got here: The trial court denied Hernandez's motions challenging the jury; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction; the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Pete Hernandez, a man of Mexican descent, was indicted and convicted of murder in Jackson County, Texas, and sentenced to life in prison. Before trial, his lawyers challenged the grand jury and trial jury, arguing that people of Mexican descent had been systematically kept off juries in the county even though many were legally qualified to serve.
The question before the Court
Could a Mexican-American man be tried by a jury system that had excluded people of Mexican descent for 25 years, even though Texas law only recognized "white" and "Black" as protected classes?
Why it matters
The ruling meant Mexican-Americans and other ethnic groups treated as a distinct class by their communities could challenge jury exclusion and other discriminatory practices under the Fourteenth Amendment, not just Black Americans. It gave civil rights lawyers a broader legal tool for challenging discrimination against any identifiable minority group, not only along strict racial lines.
What changes now
The conviction is reversed, meaning Hernandez's case goes back for further proceedings consistent with the ruling that the jury selection process was unconstitutional. The decision does not require proportional representation of ethnic groups on juries, but it establishes that any identifiable community class cannot be systematically excluded from jury service, a principle that could be invoked in future discrimination challenges nationwide.
What this does not decide
The Court made clear it was not requiring proportional representation of ethnic groups on every jury, nor giving Hernandez a right to have Mexican-Americans on his specific jury. It held only that jurors cannot be systematically excluded from an entire jury-selection process because of their ancestry or national origin.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee is not limited to a rigid "two-class theory" of only white and Black; other community groups that are treated as a separate class can also be protected from discriminatory exclusion from juries.
- The Court set out a two-part test: first, a defendant must prove that his group is a separate class distinguished from "whites" in the community, and second, he must prove that the group was in fact excluded from jury service.
- Applying the first part, the Court found that local business exclusion, school segregation, a restaurant sign reading "No Mexicans Served," and separately labeled courthouse restrooms showed the community treated Mexican-Americans as a distinct class from whites.
- Applying the second part, the Court used the "rule of exclusion" from a prior case, which allows proof that a group is a substantial part of the population, that some members are qualified for jury service, and that none has served over a long period, to establish a strong presumption of deliberate exclusion.
- Because no person with a Mexican or Latin-American surname had served on a jury commission, grand jury, or petit jury in the county for 25 years despite eligible candidates being available, the Court held this pattern amounted to unconstitutional discrimination that generalized denials by jury commissioners could not rebut.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Norris v. Alabama (294 U. S. 587)
The Court relied on this case's method of proving jury discrimination through long-term exclusion patterns.
Reaffirms Strauder v. West Virginia (100 U. S. 303)
The Court cited this case as recognizing that non-racial group exclusions from juries can also violate equal protection.