# Hernandez v. Texas

Part of a series on :
Chicanos and Mexican Americans :
Terms
Identity
Chola/o
La Raza
Pachuca
Pachuco
Pinta/o
Xicanx
Concepts
Anti-Mexican sentiment :
History
Early-American Period
Josefa Segovia
Las Gorras Blancas
Mexican–American War
Mutualista
San Elizario Salt War
Sonoratown
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Pre-Chicano Movement
1917 Bath riots
Bisbee Deportation
Bloody Christmas
Bracero program
California agricultural strikes
Cantaloupe strike of 1928
Citrus Strike of 1936
La Matanza
Mexican Repatriation
Operation Wetback
Plan de San Diego
Porvenir Massacre
Sleepy Lagoon trial
Zoot Suit Riots
Chicano Movement
Aztlán
Black-brown unity
Brown Berets
Católicos por La Raza
Centro Cultural
Chicanismo
Chicano Moratorium
Colegio César Chávez
CFMN
Conferencia de Mujeres
CRP
East L.A. walkouts
Hijas de Cuauhtémoc
Huelga schools
Land grant struggle
Las Adelitas de Aztlán
Los Siete de la Raza
Los Seis de Boulder
MANA
MAYO
MEChA
Occupation of Catalina Island
PCUN
Plan Espiritual de Aztlán
Plan de Santa Bárbara
Quinto Sol
Raza Unida Party
United Farm Workers
Post-Chicano Period
1985–1987 cannery strike
1992 Drywall Strike
2019 El Paso shooting
Abolish ICE
Arizona SB 1070
Castro 2020
Chicano Art Exhibit
DACA
Great American Boycott
IRCA
Farah strike
Justice for Janitors
Murder of Selena
Proposition 187
South Central Farm :
Culture
Language
Abrazos, no balazos
Caló
Chicano English
Chicano names
Órale
Food
New Mexican cuisine
Tex-Mex cuisine
Mexican-American cuisine
Music
Chicano rap
Chicano rock
Chicano soul
Tejano music
Symbols
Cal-Style VW
Homies
Lowrider
Lowrider bicycle
Mexican-American folklore
Pancho Claus
Zoot suit :
Literature
Literature
Chicana literature
Chicano literature
Chicano poetry
Autobiographical
Always Running
Living Up the Street
Who Would Have Thought It?
Novels
Bless Me, Ultima
Caballero
Desert Blood
From This Wicked Patch of Dust
Mexican WhiteBoy
The Dirty Girls Social Club
The House on Mango Street
The Rain God
The Revolt of the Cockroach People
So Far from God
Under the Feet of Jesus
...y no se lo tragó la tierra
Poetry and Short Stories
Emplumada
I Am Joaquin
Moment of Silence
Pensamiento Serpentino
The Moths :
Chicano studies
Fields
Chicana feminism
Chicanafuturism
Organizations
MAS Programs, Tucson
NACCS
UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center
Texts
Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza
Brown, Not White
The Church in the Barrio
This Bridge Called My Back
Theory
Barrioization
Coyolxauhqui imperative
Gringo justice
Nahui Ollin
Nepantla
New tribalism
Rasquachismo
Spiritual activism
Vergüenza
Youth control complex :
Visual art
Visual Art
Chicana art
Chicano art
Chicano cinema
Paño
Tortilla art
Art Collectives
Asco
Culture Clash
East Los Streetscapers
Los Four
Mujeres Muralistas
Teatro Campesino
Royal Chicano Air Force
Art organizations
Centro de Arte Público
Galería de la Raza
Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts
Precita Eyes
Self Help Graphics & Art
Locations
Balmy Alley
Chicano Park
Estrada Courts
Great Wall of Los Angeles :
Law
Supreme Court cases
Botiller v. Dominguez
Hernandez v. Texas
San Antonio I.S.D. v. Rodriguez
Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co.
U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce
Plyler v. Doe
Medellín v. Texas
Flores-Figueroa v. U.S.
Leal Garcia v. Texas
Mendez v. Westminster
Bernal v. Fainter
Perez v. Brownell
DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
Federal Court cases
Madrigal v. Quilligan :
Population
Population by City
Arizona (Tucson)
California (Los Angeles)
Illinois (Chicago)
Michigan (Detroit)
Nebraska (Omaha)
Texas
Dallas–Fort Worth
Houston
Multiethnic
Blaxicans
Californios
Nuevomexicanos
Tejanos
Indigenous Mexican Americans
Punjabi Mexican Americans :
Lists
Chicano films
Chicano poets
Chicano rappers
Mexican Americans
Writers
Bibliography :
United States portal
Category
Index :
vte :
Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), was a landmark case, "the first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period." In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States have equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. This was the first case in which Mexican-American lawyers had appeared before the Supreme Court.

## Background

Peter Hernandez, a Mexican-American agricultural worker, was convicted for the 1951 murder of Cayetano “Joe” Espinosa, a man that he shot in cold blood at a bar in Edna, Texas. Hernandez's pro bono legal team, including Gustavo C. García, appealed the ruling, arguing that he was being discriminated against because there were no Mexicans in the jury that convicted him. They hoped to challenge what they described as "the systematic exclusion of persons of Mexican origin from all types of jury duty in at least seventy counties in Texas." They argued that Hernandez had the right to be tried by a jury of his peers under the 14th Amendment, but at the time, the 14th Amendment was a special civil rights protection intended for Black citizens. The State of Texas denied their claim, on the grounds that Mexicans were White and the 14th Amendment did not protect White nationality groups.
Hernandez's legal team appealed, claiming that Mexican Americans, although White, were treated as a class apart and subject to social discrimination in Jackson County, where the case had been tried, and therefore were deserving of 14th Amendment protection. Their task was then to prove that Mexicans were being discriminated against and that they had been excluded from the grand jury and jury. The State of Texas never officially barred Mexicans from jury service, but Hernandez's defense lawyers demonstrated that, although numerous Mexican Americans were citizens and had otherwise qualified for jury duty in Jackson County, during the previous 25 years no Mexican Americans (or, more precisely, no one with a Hispanic surname) were among the 6,000 persons chosen to serve on juries. This resulted in Hernandez having been deprived of equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, as juries were restricted by ethnicity.
They appealed to the United States Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari. The legal team included García, Carlos Cadena and John J. Herrera of the League of United Latin American Citizens, and James DeAnda and Cris Alderete of the G. I. Forum, both activist groups for civil rights for Mexican Americans. These were the first Mexican-American lawyers to represent a defendant before the US Supreme Court, which heard their arguments on January 11, 1954.

## Ruling

Chief Justice Earl Warren and the rest of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Hernandez, and required he be retried by a jury composed without discrimination against Mexican Americans. Hernandez received a new trial with a jury that included Mexican Americans and was subsequently found guilty of murder once again.
The court omitted the focus of race by declaring that other factors influence whether or not a group may need constitutional protection. To determine if discriminatory factors were present in Jackson County, the court investigated the treatment of Mexican Americans. They discovered a county-wide distinction between "white" and "Mexican" persons. At least one restaurant prominently displayed a sign that declared, "No Mexicans Served." Additionally, until a few years earlier, some Mexican American children attended segregated schools and were forced to drop out by fifth or sixth grade. These factors led the Supreme Court to their ultimate ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment protects persons beyond the racial classes of white or black, and extends protection to nationality groups of white race as well.

## Influence

The ruling was an extension of protection in the Civil Rights Movement to nationality groups within the country and an acknowledgement that, in certain times and places, groups other than blacks (African Americans) could be discriminated against. The ultimate effect of this ruling was that the protection of the 14th Amendment was ruled to cover any national or ethnic groups of the United States for which discrimination could be proved.
The oral arguments of this case have been lost. However, the United States Supreme Court docket sheet and letter from Justice Clark to Chief Justice regarding joining opinion are available online.