Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.

Background

Thaddeus Edmonson, a Black construction worker, sued Leesville Concrete Company in federal court after a jobsite injury at Fort Polk. During jury selection, Leesville used two of its three peremptory strikes to remove Black prospective jurors. The trial court denied Edmonson’s request for race-neutral reasons, the Fifth Circuit issued divided rulings, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether private parties in civil trials may use race-based peremptory strikes.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a private litigant’s peremptory strikes can be treated as government action and thus subject to equal protection. Applying the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component, the Court found peremptory challenges come from state authority (including 28 U.S.C. §1870) and that private parties act with government assistance when they strike jurors. Because jury selection is a core governmental function and the judge enforces the strikes, the Court held race-based exclusions in civil trials violate excluded jurors’ equal protection rights and that opposing litigants can raise those rights, following the Court’s earlier reasoning in Batson and Powers.

Real world impact

As a result, private parties and their lawyers in civil jury trials cannot remove jurors for their race. Trial judges must hear challenges to such strikes and develop rules to implement the decision. The Court reversed the lower court and sent the case back for the trial court to decide whether Edmonson proved a prima facie case under Batson.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices O’Connor and Scalia dissented, arguing peremptory strikes are private choices, not state action, and warning the ruling will increase litigation burdens and may have unintended consequences for jury selection.