Turner v. Fouche
Headline: Court finds county jury selection system produced racial exclusion and strikes down a property-ownership rule for school boards, forcing fairer procedures for jury lists and board membership in affected counties.
Holding: The Court held that the county’s jury-selection process produced a strong initial showing of racial exclusion, that the freeholder requirement for school-board membership lacked a valid justification, and it vacated and remanded the lower judgment.
- Requires courts to correct jury lists that underrepresent Black residents.
- Invalidates property-ownership rule as a barrier to serving on county school boards.
- Increases scrutiny of local procedures that select public officials.
Summary
Background
A Black schoolchild and her father sued county officials in a mostly Black Georgia county after the county school board was all white and the county schools served only Black students. The board was chosen by the grand jury, the grand jury by a six-member jury commission, and the commissioners were chosen by the state trial judge. The plaintiffs showed that the commissioners put on the jury list only people they personally knew and that very few Black citizens were placed on the list or confirmed to the grand jury.
Reasoning
The Court looked at whether the way the jury list was made and the rule requiring school-board members to own real property violated equal protection. The Court found a big gap between the county’s 60% Black population and the much lower percentage of Black people on the jury lists. It highlighted that commissioners disqualified many people as “unintelligent” or not “upright” — mostly Black people — and failed to investigate hundreds of registered voters. The Court said the plaintiffs had made a strong initial showing of racial exclusion and that the state had not explained those disparities. The Court also found the freeholder rule for board membership had no reasonable connection to serving on the school board and therefore discriminated.
Real world impact
The Court set aside the lower court’s judgment and sent the case back for further fact-finding and relief to correct discriminatory jury selection and to eliminate the property-ownership barrier to serving on the county school board. The decision requires clearer, fairer procedures where similar selection practices exist.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?