JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB

Background

The State of Alabama, on behalf of a mother, sued a man for paternity and child support. At trial the jury pool began with 36 prospective jurors (12 men, 24 women). After some for-cause excuses, the State used nine of ten peremptory strikes to remove men and the man on trial struck nearly all remaining women, leaving an all-female jury. The trial and Alabama appellate courts rejected the man’s objection that the State’s strikes were based solely on gender.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether excluding jurors because of gender violates the Equal Protection Clause. Relying on prior decisions that barred race-based strikes, the majority held that gender is likewise an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence or partiality. The opinion explained that relying on gender stereotypes harms litigants, the community, and the excluded jurors, and that gender-based strikes ratify historical discrimination. The Court said peremptory challenges are not abolished, but parties may not use gender as the sole reason to remove jurors; a complaining party must make a prima facie showing, and the striking party must offer a gender-neutral, nonpretextual reason.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents state actors from using peremptory strikes solely because a juror is male or female and requires courts and lawyers to articulate neutral reasons when discrimination is shown. The decision applies to both men and women as potential victims of exclusion and leaves peremptory challenges otherwise available for non-gender-based reasons.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor joined the judgment but urged limiting the rule to government actors; other Justices dissented, warning of costs to the peremptory system and differences between race and sex.