Is the case Hernandez v Texas an example of judicial activism?

Answer 1

No, not in my opinion (explanation follows).

Pete Hernandez was indicted by a Jackson County, Texas, grand jury on murder charges in the death of Joe Espinosa. Prior to the trial, Hernandez's attorney filed a motion to quash the indictment and jury panel on the grounds that qualified Mexican-Americans were systematically excluded from the jury pool. The judge denied the motions, and Hernandez was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The trial court's decision was upheld on appeal.

The US Supreme Court reversed the Texas State courts' decision, stating the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applied to more than two races, and that Mexican-Americans (and others) could not be excluded on the basis of race. This was a reasonable extension of prior interpretation of the Amendment.

In the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren cited a nearly identical case, Strauder v. West Virginia, (1879), as precedent. In Strauder, the Court declared otherwise qualified African-Americans couldn't be excluded from jury duty. Strauder was reaffirmed by numerous other cases, such as Gibson v. Mississippi, (1896), Carter v. Texas,(1900), Norris v. Alabama, (1935), etc. The Warren Court adhered to the doctrine of stare decisis, with the only exception being the particular group(s) to which the decision applied.

Texas State statistics demonstrated approximately 6-7% of Jackson County residents were qualified for jury duty under state law, indicating their total exclusion was a discriminatory practice that deprived Hernandez of equal protection under law.

While Hernandez overturned policies (and perhaps even statutes) in many states, it did not represent a significant change in social policy or logically misconstrue the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. For these reasons, the case cannot legitimately be argued as an example of judicial activism.

Case Citation:

Hernandez v. Texas, 347 US 475 (1954)