Davis v. Minnesota

Background

A Black defendant was tried for aggravated robbery after the prosecutor used a peremptory strike to remove a Black venireman who was a Jehovah’s Witness. The defendant objected under Batson, asking for a race-neutral explanation. The prosecutor said the juror’s religion made him less likely to exercise authority in court; the trial court accepted that reason and the defendant was convicted. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, saying Batson addresses race and should not be extended to religion.

Reasoning

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Minnesota court’s decision, so it did not decide whether Batson’s ban on race-based peremptory strikes should also forbid strikes based on religion. Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) dissented from the denial, arguing that a recent decision extending Batson to gender-based strikes (J.E.B.) suggests Batson should also cover religion. Justice Ginsburg wrote a brief concurrence noting Minnesota’s point that religious affiliation is not always obvious and asking care about voir dire questions about religion.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, Minnesota’s ruling — and the conviction — remain in place, and the question whether Batson forbids religion-based strikes is unresolved nationally. The denial is not a final ruling on the merits; a future case could force the Court to decide whether religion-based peremptory strikes violate equal protection.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissent urged the Court to grant review, vacate the judgment, and send the case back to consider whether J.E.B.’s logic requires extending Batson to religious classifications, while the concurrence emphasized practical concerns about questioning jurors about religion.