Defacto, it used to be the case that states had the ability to select their own rules regarding juries. Some states required unanimous verdicts and some did not

Defacto, it used to be the case that states had the ability to select their own rules regarding juries. Some states required unanimous verdicts and some did not. Now, it is likely the case that defacto states do not have that ability. Since America broadly follows rule of law, I think it is highly likely that this decision will be enforced. According to the supreme court, it was never legally the case that the states had that right, and the states will have to decide how to respond with respect to the incorrectly convicted people. But many people were put in prison on the basis of majority verdicts and this decision doesn't give them their time served back - it only changes the future. So the op is right to consider that something has changed and states are likely to be unable to do something that they used to do. It is surely not a hill I would want to die on, and I surely do not think a state should have a right to preserve white supremacy.[] It seems we all knew what the right to jury trial meant, and conservatives have been arguing for the court to consider the originalist meaning. [] I don't think a majority verdict necessarily needs to have any relationship with white supremacy, and I'm aware that other countries have found other paths. I also don't think procedurally valid court cases need to have unanimity. But if you sign up for a constitution that guarantees convicts a jury trial and you demand conservative interpretations what outcome do you really expect?