less than 1 minute read

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.


Alabama ex rel T. B.

Petitioner's Claim

Because Batson v. Kentucky (1986) prohibited peremptory challenges based on racial discrimination, intentional discrimination on the basis of gender was also violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

John F. Porter III

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Lois B. Brasfield

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens

Justices Dissenting

William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas


Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

19 April 1994


Peremptory challenges on the basis of gender were inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause. Respondent's biased exercise of peremptory challenges was unconstitutional.

Related Cases

  • Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
  • Wiley v. Com., 978 S.W.2d 333 (1998).


Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G. Walker. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1995.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994