J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Significance, The Peremptory Challenge, Different Discrimination?, Need For Limited Use, The Dissent, Impact

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Significance

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Further Readings

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - The Peremptory Challenge

In order to determine paternity and get support for her minor child, respondent T. B. (mother), represented by the state of Alabama, filed a paternity suit against J. E. B. (alleged father). The trial court called 36 potential jurors (24 female, 12 male) for the panel. Three jurors were excluded by the court, so only 10 male jurors remained when the state exercised its nine of ten peremptory strik…

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Different Discrimination?

The Court did not find that certain cases might justify suppositions that men and women could have different standpoints which would substantiate distinctions and exclusions on the basis of gender. Justices found that similar prejudicial attitudes had (historically) befallen African Americans and women, therefore, gender based classifications were equally unacceptable. In explaining the majority r…

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Need For Limited Use

Justice O'Connor filed a concurring opinion. She also felt that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited elimination of jurors by gender but she felt that the Court's conclusion should have been "limited to the government's use of gender-based peremptory strikes." Justice O'Connor recognized that the substance of peremptory challenges was to empower litigants to choose members of a jury without offe…

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - The Dissent

Three justices joined Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. (Chief Justice Rehnquist, separately, also mentioned that he could not find so many similarities between sex and race discrimination. Accordingly, he would not accept the ruling in Batson v. Kentucky as reference for such holdings of the majority.) Scalia thought that this decision of the majority could damage administration of justice by …

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Impact

The judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the question of whether peremptory challenges, exercised because of gender prejudices, could survive "the heightened equal protection scrutiny." Majority justices held that equal protection principles applied when intentional peremptory challenges were exercised solely on the basis of gender. Discrimination and exclusion of jurors from the jury pool…

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Peremptory Challenges

During the final phase of jury selection, attorneys on both sides question prospective jurors to determine their suitability to sit on the jury. Their goal is to dismiss jurors who might be biased against the interests of their clients. This process is called voir dire. During voir dire attorneys use two means to eliminate potential jurors: challenge for cause and peremptory challenge. When an att…