Supreme Court of the United States
J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.
April 19, 1994511 U.S. 127
Summary
The Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids litigants to exercise peremptory challenges on the basis of gender, extending the Batson race-discrimination rule to sex: gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality. Applying heightened scrutiny, the Court found that Alabama's use of nine of its ten peremptory strikes to remove male jurors in a state-initiated paternity suit rested on unconstitutional stereotypes and was not substantially related to securing a fair and impartial jury, and it reversed and remanded. Justice O'Connor concurred, agreeing with the result but urging that the holding be limited to governmental use of gender-based strikes; Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment on individual-rights grounds, while Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia dissented, contending that race and gender discrimination differ sufficiently that Batson should not be extended to gender.
Holding
- Whether the Equal Protection Clause forbids peremptory challenges exercised on the basis of gender.. Yes. Gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality; the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender, or on the assumption that an individual will be biased solely because the person happens to be a woman or a man. A party alleging gender discrimination must make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination, and the striking party's explanation must rest on a juror characteristic other than gender and may not be pretextual.
Docket No. 92-1239
Cited authorities
- CA10
- 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1920
- 20 Ga. L. Rev. 257
- 12 U. Fla. L. Rev. 224
- 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 153