FACTS: Pete Hernandez was convicted of murder by the Jackson County Court. Hernandez was sentenced to a life sentence by a jury that consisted of caucasian individuals. Hernandez’s attorneys claimed to the Texas Court of Appeals that individuals of Mexican descent were systematically excluded from joining a jury in an attempt to reverse the decision. The Trial Court then denied the petition that the Jackson County Court deprived Hernandez from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For over twenty years, Mexican- Americans were deprived from jury. The Appeals Court presented evidence of Mexicans being a subclass of the Caucasian race and not a part of another race like the Black race. Signs that designated Mexican only areas and utilities were used to segregate in Jackson County where people were either “White” or “Mexican.” The Supreme Court, under Warren, took on the case on the basis of the systematic discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment of those with any Mexican descent. ISSUE: Is the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment invalidated when a jury is composed all by one race that systematically imposses the race of the defendant? DECISION: The Supreme Court of the United States found evidence to prove that Hernandez was in fact not given a fair trial, and the justices granted an extension of the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment.RATIONALE: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pete Hernandez on the basis of the systematic segregation of anyone who was predicted to be of Mexican descent in Jackson County Courts. The State of Texas presented evidence that Mexican- Americans were a subclass of white people, therefore no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. The Supreme Court then found that Texas allowed for an ongoing dehumanization of Latin Americans by restricting certain amenities with signs that read “No Mexicans Served.” The Supreme Court was aware of the sub-race that Mexicans were a part of, yet the signs that restricted Mexican Americans from certain utilities and areas underlined the issue. Mexican- Americans were discriminated as a lower class or division in Texas, therefore leading to slight inclusion of Mexican- Americans in businesses and community groups. Residents of the community were either labeled “White” or “Mexican,” therefore the claim that Mexicans were a subclass of White people was invalid. Hernandez and his team were set to prove the unconstitutional practices of the Texas Courts system by citing a connecting case. Norris v. State of Alabama, 294 U.S. 587, 55 S. Ct. 579, 584, 79 L. Ed. 10174 was used in order to present that “Negroes” were subjected to limitations in jury due to their race. Norris v. Alabama claimed that “some Negroes were qualified to serve as jurors, and that none had been called for jury…” which hold some correlation to what the Texas Courts practiced. In that certain case, Black individuals were kept from practicing in a jury because of a system that filtered the jury by skin color, therefore excluding Black Americans from fair trials. The Fourteenth Amendment has historical context with African- Americans, therefore the correlation between what happened in Alabama and Texas was made in order to extend the protection of the Equal Protection Clause. In the case of Hernandez, the Texas Courts filtered names in order to prevent anyone with a Latin American name to actively practice in jury. The ‘rule of exclusion’ had previously been found to systematically discriminate against certain races or skin colors, justifying the invalidation of the Equal Protection Clause. For over twenty-five years, Mexican- Americans were kept from actively participating in jury due to their origin. It was found that there were some men who were able to participate in jury, but they were denied the right because of the stigma around Mexican- Americans in Texas. It was obvious that the discriminatory feelings towards Mexicans were brutal in Texas, insofar as the exclusion of Mexican- Americans were plastered on walls and signs . The state promptly stated that their, “only objective had been to select… whom they thought were best qualified.” No qualifications were found for over twenty five years for anyone of Mexican descent, yet there were citizens and freeholders who had all legal prerequisites to serve in jury. The Supreme Court found truth behind Hernandez’s claims of discrimination towards Mexican- Americans in Jackson County Courts. The State was able to present proof of their qualification policies, yet they were not enough evidence to prove why they systematically excluded Mexican Americans. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the Fourteenth Amendment was not solemnly applicable to Blacks and Whites, and the Warren Court extended the protection to all Americans.