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

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 rationale, Justice Blackmun pointed out that the history of sex and racial discrimination influenced the Court's judgement that only "an exceedingly persuasive justification" would ever justify sex-based classifications. Specifically, such classifications were dependent on "whether discrimination on the basis of gender in jury selection substantially furthers the state's legitimate interest in achieving a fair and impartial trial."

In the interest of securing unprejudiced trials, the majority disapproved of peremptory challenges based on gender stereotypes. They rejected the respondent's argument that gender simply could be viewed as an issue apart from race discrimination and that exclusions on the basis of gender could not cause harm to participants in the judicial process. They also pointed out that discrimination in court rooms, regardless of how well-intended, harmfully affected fairness of proceedings. They allowed, however, that some circumstances (such as rape or sexual harassment trials), might merit peremptory challenges based on gender. But the Court explained that prejudicial approaches about competence and abilities of male and female members of the jury could not be confirmed as an admissible and lawful means of reaching justice. Majority justices found as inappropriate the respondent's argument "that men deserve no protection from gender discrimination in jury selection because they are not victims of historical discrimination." To the contrary, the justices felt "all persons, when granted the opportunity to serve on a jury, have the right not to be excluded summarily because of discriminatory and stereotypical presumptions that reflect and reinforce patterns of historical discrimination."

The Court majority stressed that their opinion did not abolish use of all peremptory strikes. Peremptory challenges were acceptable if used to remove jurors from the panel if litigants felt that somebody could be "less acceptable" or if they found other attributes or reasons to exclude other than by gender or race. Justices hinted that peremptory strikes (when justification is required) had to be founded in some other rational excuse or juror's characteristic except gender. They did not devaluate the legitimate and practical usefulness of peremptory challenges, but they stressed that they were not rights protected by the Constitution and that their purpose was to impanel an impartial jury. The justices found that "gender simply may not serve as a proxy for bias."