Michigan v. Booker

Background

A party in a criminal case challenged the use of peremptory strikes that excluded Black people from the petit jury. The Court of Appeals had concluded that the Sixth Amendment forbids such race-based peremptory challenges. The person appealing sought leave to proceed without paying fees, and the Supreme Court granted review, vacated the judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Allen v. Hardy and Batson v. Kentucky.

Reasoning

The immediate question the Court addressed was procedural: whether the lower court’s judgment should stand given the Court’s recent decisions. The Supreme Court did not resolve the underlying constitutional dispute in this short order. Instead, it ordered the lower court to reconsider the case while taking guidance from Allen and Batson, the latter having addressed race-based jury exclusions under the Equal Protection Clause.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court sent the case back rather than deciding the merits, lower courts must re-evaluate claims that peremptory strikes excluded Black jurors using Batson and Allen as guidance. That reexamination could influence who serves on criminal juries and how trial lawyers use peremptory strikes. Allowing the person to proceed without paying fees also means the appeal will continue to be heard.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger dissented and would have reversed the Court of Appeals. He argued the Sixth Amendment claim is without merit, noting that in Batson the Court relied on Equal Protection and expressly declined to decide the Sixth Amendment question, and he believed race-based peremptory strikes do not deny jurors or the community the right to serve.