J e b v alabama ex rel t b

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994)

We granted certiorari, U. The State then used 9 of its 10 peremptory strikes to remove male jurors; petitioner used all but one of his strikes to remove female jurors. In recent cases we have emphasized that individual jurors themselves have a right to nondiscriminatory jury selection procedures.

Racial groups comprise numerical minorities in our society, warranting in some situations a greater need for protection, whereas the population is divided almost equally between men and women. We do not prohibit racial and gender bias in jury selection only to encourage it in jury deliberations.

That explains why peremptory challenges coexisted with the Equal Protection Clause for years. See post, at 6. Written in plain English, not in legalese. The Equal Protection Clause and our constitutional tradition are based on the theory that an individual possesses rights that are protected against lawless action by the government.

When an explanation is required, it need not rise to the level of a "for cause" challenge; rather, it merely must be based on a juror characteristic other than gender, and the proffered explanation may not be pretextual.

Yet a flavor, a distinct quality is lost if either sex is excluded. The Court is correct to hold that it does. Post, at discriminatory peremptory challenges have "coexisted with the Equal Protection Clause for years" ; post, at there was a "year interlude between our holding that exclusion from juries on the basis of race was unconstitutional, [Strauder], and our holding that peremptory challenges on the basis of race were unconstitutional, [Batson]".

As with race, the "core guarantee of equal protection, ensuring citizens that their State will not discriminate. Though in some initial drafts the Fourteenth Amendment was written to prohibit discrimination against "persons because of race, color or previous condition of servitude," the Amendment submitted for consideration and later ratified contained more comprehensive terms: That fact lies at the very heart of the jury system.

Post, at 4 discriminatory peremptory challenges "have co existed with the Equal Protection Clause for years" ; post, at 5 there was a "year interlude between our holding that exclusion from juries on the basis of race was unconstitutional, [Strauder, supra], and our holding that peremptory challenges on the basis of race were unconstitutional, [Batson, supra]".

Our commitment to eliminating discrimination from the legal process should not allow us to forget that not all that occurs in the courtroom is state action.

The Court justified the differential exemption policy on the ground that women, unlike men, occupied a unique position "as the center of home and family life.

Moreover, "[t]he essential nature of the peremptory challenge is that it is one exercised without a reason stated, with- out inquiry and without being subject to the court's control. Will we, in the name of fighting gender discrimination, hold that the battered wife-on trial for wounding her abusive husband-is a state actor.

Kentucky, which prohibits peremptory strikes solely on the basis of race, similarly forbids intentional discrimination on the basis of gender. But, as we add, layer by layer, additional constitutional restraints on the use of the peremptory, we force lawyers to articulate what we know is often inarticulable.

We hold that gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality. Furthermore, while substantial discrimination against both groups still lingers in our society, racial equality has proved a more challenging goal to achieve on many fronts than gender equality.

But even when a jury of matrons was used, the examination took place in the presence of 12 men, who also composed part of the jury in such cases. So long as gender does not serve as a proxy for bias, unacceptable jurors may still be removed, including those who are members of a group or class that is normally subject to "rational basis" review and those who exhibit characteristics that are disproportionately associated with one gender.


Since all groups are subject to the peremptory challenge and will be made the object of it, depending upon the nature of the particular case it is hard to see how any group is denied equal protection. Stanton, supra; Craig v.

As a result, respondent contends, some litigants may be unable to come up with gender-neutral explanations for their strikes. Named the 9 fastest growing education company in the United States.

Stanton, supra; Craig v. It is fruitless to inquire of a male juror whether he harbors any subliminal prejudice in favor of unwed fathers. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. Respondent's rationale-that its decision to strike virtually all males in this case may reasonably have been based on the perception, supported by history, that men otherwise totally qualified to serve as jurors might be more sympathetic and receptive to the arguments of a man charged in a paternity action, while women equally qualified might be more sympathetic and receptive to the arguments of the child's mother-is virtually unsupported and is based on the very stereotypes the law condemns.

That fact lies at the very heart of the jury system. The diverse and representative character of the jury must be maintained "partly as assurance of a diffused impartiality and partly because sharing in the administration of justice is a phase of civic responsibility.

The case involves, therefore, sex discrimination plain and simple. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. This interest does not change with the parties or the causes. Women were thought to be too fragile and virginal to withstand the polluted courtroom atmosphere.

Alabama, acting on behalf of T.B. (the mother), sought paternity and child support from J.E.B.(the putative father). A jury found for T.B. In forming the jury, Alabama used its peremptory strikes to eliminate nine of the ten men who were in the jury pool; J.E.B.

use. On behalf of relator T. B., the mother of a minor child, respondent State of Alabama filed a complaint for paternity and child support against petitioner J. E.

Facts and Case Summary - J.E.B. v. Alabama

B. in the District Court of Jackson County, Alabama. J. E. B. v. ALABAMA ex rel.

J.E.B. v. Alabama

T. B. certiorari to the court of civil appeals of alabama. No. Argued November 2, Decided April 19, At petitioner's paternity and child support trial, respondent State used 9 of its 10 peremptory challenges to remove male jurors. Plaintiff, J.E.B., challenged the lower courts’ decision allowing Respondent, the state of Alabama, to use its peremptory challenges to remove all the male jurors.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits a party to use their peremptory challenges to remove.

NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 73 Number 2The University of North Carolina School of Law: A Sesquicentennial History Article 4 J.E.B.

J.E.B. v. Alabama Ex Rel. T.B

v. Alabama ex. rel. T.B. and the Fate of the Peremptory Challenge North Carolina Law Review. Note J.E.B. v. ALABAMA ex rel. T.B.: THE SUPREME COURT MOVES CLOSER TO EIMINATION OF THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE INTRODUCTION InJE.B.

v. Alabama ex rel. TB.,' the United.

J e b v alabama ex rel t b
Rated 0/5 based on 49 review
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., U.S. ().