Georgia v. McCollum

Background

Two white men were indicted in Georgia for assaulting Black victims. Before jurors were picked, the prosecutor asked the court to stop the defense from using peremptory strikes to remove African‑American jurors. State courts allowed the defendants to use peremptories without restriction, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether defendants may purposely exclude jurors because of race.

Reasoning

The Court framed the question as whether a defendant’s use of peremptory challenges counts as government action under the Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on recent cases that extended Batson’s ban on race‑based strikes, the majority said peremptory challenges are authorized and carried out by state process and therefore become state action. The Court held that such racially motivated strikes harm excluded jurors and the community and that, after a prima facie showing, defendants must give race‑neutral reasons.

Real world impact

This decision bars criminal defendants from removing jurors solely because of race. Prosecutors and courts can object and require explanations when they show a pattern suggesting discrimination. The ruling reversed the Georgia Supreme Court and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this rule. It is a nationwide statement about constitutional limits on jury selection in criminal trials.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing defendants and their lawyers perform traditional defense functions and are not state actors, so the Fourteenth Amendment should not apply. Justice Thomas concurred only in the judgment, agreeing with the result because of prior precedent but warning against limiting peremptories. Chief Justice Rehnquist joined the opinion only because of Edmonson.