The Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a prosecutor from using peremptory challenges to remove potential jurors because of their race.

James Batson, an African AmericanAfrican Americans;juries[juries], was indicted for second-degree burglary. When the judge conducted a voir dire examination (preliminary check of suitability and qualifications) of the potential jurors, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to remove all four African Americans from the panel, resulting in an all-white jury. The Supreme Court had refused to disturb the same development in Swain v. Alabama[case]Swain v. Alabama[Swain v. Alabama] (1965). After Batson’s conviction, nevertheless, his lawyers asserted that the process of jury selection violated his rights to equal protection and to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community.Discrimination, raceJury composition;Batson v. Kentucky[Batson v. Kentucky]Discrimination, race

By a 7-2 majority, the Court accepted Batson’s claim. Speaking for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.,Powell, Lewis F., Jr.;Batson v. Kentucky[Batson v. Kentucky] remanded the case and instructed the trial court to require the prosecutor to justify the exclusion of members of the defendant’s race from the jury. If the prosecutor were unable to give a racially neutral explanation, Batson’s conviction would have to be reversed. Powell’s opinion formulated a framework for future voir dire proceedings. The basic idea is that a pattern of exclusion based on race creates an inference of discrimination. Once such an inference is established, the prosecutor has the burden of showing that the peremptories are not discriminatory. Emphasizing that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to peremptory challenges, Powell wrote that potential jurors may not be eliminated simply because of the assumption that people of a particular race might be more sympathetic to a particular defendant. Thus, Powell’s opinion requires color-conscious rather than color-blind procedures in jury selection, and it tends to encourage the use of racial quotas.

The Batson principles have been significantly expanded. In Powers v. Ohio[case]Powers v. Ohio[Powers v. Ohio] (1991), the Court held that criminal defendants may object to race-based peremptory challenges even if the defendant and the excluded jurors do not belong to the same race. Later that year, in Edmondson v. Leesville Concrete Co., the Court applied the Batson framework to the selection of juries in civil trials. In Georgia v. McCollum[case]Georgia v. McCollum[Georgia v. McCollum] (1992), the Court decided that the Batson ruling applies to defense attorneys. In J. E. B. v. Alabama (1994), moreover, the Court held that the equal protection clause prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender.

Due process, substantive

Jury, trial by

Jury composition and size

Powers v. Ohio