On the merits, Kaye believed too much deference was provided to the trial court's decision and was concerned that while the prosecutor expressed an interest in removing Spanish-speakers because of the interpreter there was no indication that any non-Latino jurors were asked if they spoke Spanish as well. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to determine if a Latino juror struck from jury service because of their Spanish language in a court translated proceeding violated a defendant's "Batson" protections. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) filed an amicus curiae on behalf of Hernandez. MALDEF's argument focused on the wide usage of Spanish by Hispanics and the sociolinguistic evidence that supported Hispanics as living in a world where they are constantly required to switch between Spanish and English without the ability to turn off the ability to speak either. It forecasted that Hispanic jurors would become an "endangered species" if they are presumed to be biased based off a common attribute. At oral argument, Hernandez argued that it is a "per se" "Batson" violation to discriminate on language. Hernandez believed that every bilingual juror would express the same hesitance that the striked jurors in his case would because of their language ability. The Court was concerned with line drawing issues of potential multiple dialects or languages for a given foreign country and if a prosecutor could ever use a peremptory strike against a bilingual juror. New York argued that Hernandez's position was against Supreme Court jurisprudence for three main reasons: it uses the juror's answer as proof of a prosecutor's intent to discriminate, it prevents individualized assessment of jurors in favor of group stereotypes, and it would create no ability for prosecutors to excuse certain jurors. Justice Kennedy wrote the plurality opinion. After outlining the facts of the case and procedural history of the case, the Court moved on to the Court's jurisprudence on "Batson". It reiterated "Batson's" three step process: first, a defendant must make a "prima facie" case of racial discrimination, second, if it is made the burden shifts to the prosecutor to make a race-neutral showing for the strike, and finally the trial judge make a determination if the defendant's claim stands. Even though Hernandez did not make a "prima facie" showing before the prosecutor presented a race-neutral reasoning, the Court found this did not impact the analysis because it rested with the trial judge's determination. The Court side-stepped Hernandez's argument on the correlation between Spanish-speaking ability and ethnicity because of the additional factors the prosecutor articulated in his reasoning for striking the two Latino jurors.