Thompson v. United States
Headline: Court denies review in case where the government admitted using race to strike Black jurors, leaving the conviction intact and Swain’s rule on peremptory strikes unexamined.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the conviction intact despite an admission that the prosecutor used race to remove Black jurors, and declined to reconsider Swain v. Alabama.
- Leaves the conviction in place despite admission of race-based juror exclusions.
- Declines to reopen Swain v. Alabama’s rule on peremptory strikes.
- Keeps uncertainty in lower courts about how to challenge race-based jury strikes.
Summary
Background
Petitioner Thompson was convicted of federal counterfeiting charges and argued at trial that the Government used peremptory challenges (lawyers’ ability to remove jurors without giving a reason) to exclude five of seven potential jurors described in the opinion as "Negro." The Assistant United States Attorney said on the record that race was used as a criterion. The District Court rejected the challenge based on Swain v. Alabama, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case.
Reasoning
The core question is whether the Court should reconsider the rule from Swain that has limited review of race-based peremptory strikes. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) argues that Swain’s reasoning is now unsupportable. He says Swain effectively allows prosecutors to presume Black jurors will be partial and shields that practice from equal protection scrutiny, which disrespects individual jurors and conflicts with basic jury-trial principles. Brennan also says deferring the issue to state courts has bred confusion rather than useful experimentation.
Real world impact
Because the Court denied review, the specific conviction remains in place despite the record admission that race was used to exclude jurors. The broader rule from Swain was not revisited, so uncertainty about how to challenge race-based jury strikes persists in lower courts. According to the dissent, this recurring constitutional issue affects the fairness of jury selection in criminal trials and calls for a definitive resolution.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan’s dissent, joined by Justice Marshall, urges the Court to take up the issue and reconsider Swain on equal protection and jury-trial grounds.
Opinions in this case:
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?