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.
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
William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
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.
- 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.
- Jack Kevorkian Trials: 1994-99 - The Public Debate Over Assisted Suicide Begins, Michigan Suspends Kevorkian's License, The Severely Iii Ask Kevorkian For Help
- Ira Einhorn Trial: 1993 - An Abusive Relationship Leads To Murder, Defendant Flees The Country, A Trial Without The Defendant Present
- 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
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Different Discrimination?
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Need For Limited Use
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - The Dissent
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Impact
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T. B. - Peremptory Challenges
- Other Free Encyclopedias