J e b v alabama ex rel t b

Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. Although premised on equal protection principles that apply equally to gender discrimination, all our recent cases defining the scope of Batson involved alleged racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Today we are faced with the question whether the EqualProtection Clause forbids intentional discrimination on the basis of gender, just as it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race.

J e b v alabama ex rel t b

Facts and Case Summary - J.E.B. v. Alabama | United States Courts

The jury found petitioner to be the father of the child in question and the trial court ordered him to pay child support. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender, or on the assumption that an individual will be biased in a particular case solely because that person happens to be a woman or a man.

The conclusion that litigants may not strike potential jurors solely on the basis of gender does not imply the elimination of all peremptory challenges. So long as gender does not serve as a proxy for bias, unacceptable jurors may still be removed, including those who are members of a group or class that is normally subject to "rational basis" review and those who exhibit characteristics that are disproportionately associated with one gender.

Porter III argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. Dreeben argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. Brasfield, Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the briefs was William F.

Prendergast, Assistant Attorney General. West Virginia, U. Since Batson, we have reaffirmed repeatedly our commitment to jury selection procedures that are fair and nondiscriminatory. We have recognized that whether the trial is criminal or civil, potential jurors, as well as litigants, have an equal protection right to jury selection procedures that are free from state-sponsored group stereotypes rooted in, and reflective of, historical prejudice.

Today we are faced with the question whether the Equal Protection Clause forbids intentional discrimination on the basis of gender, just as it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. We hold that gender, like race, is an unconstitutional proxy for juror competence and impartiality.

I On behalf of relator T. On October 21,the matter was called for trial and jury selection began. The trial court assembled a panel of 36 potential jurors, 12 males and 24 females. After the court excused three jurors for cause, only 10 of the remaining 33 jurors were male.

The State then used 9 of its 10 peremptory strikes to remove male jurors; petitioner used all but one of his strikes to remove female jurors. As a result, all the selected jurors were female.

Petitioner argued that the logic and reasoning of Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits peremptory strikes solely on the basis of race, similarly forbids intentional discrimination on the basis of gender. The jury found petitioner to be the father of the child, and the court entered an order directing him to pay child support.

On post judgment motion, the court reaffirmed its ruling that Batson does not extend to genderbased peremptory challenges. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari, No. We granted certiorari, U. Intentional discrimination on the basis of gender by state actors violates 1 The Federal Courts of Appeals have divided on the issue.

See United States v. De Gross, F. State courts also have considered the constitutionality of gender-based peremptory challenges.

II Discrimination on the basis of gender in the exercise of peremptory challenges is a relatively recent phenomenon. New York, U.The State of Alabama used preemptory challenges in such a way as to create an all female jury in a paternity case. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “Intentional discrimination on the basis of gender by state actors violates the Equal Protection Clause, particularly where.

J. E. B., PETITIONER v. ALABAMA ex rel. T. B. on writ of certiorari to the court of civil appeals of alabama [April 19, ]Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court..

Although premised on equal protection principles that apply equally to gender discrimination, all our recent cases defining the scope of Batson involved alleged racial discrimination in the exercise of peremptory.

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B. :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

us1$35Z PAGES OPINPGT J. E. B. v. ALABAMA ex rel. T. B. Opinion of the Court John F. Porter III argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. Michael R. Dreeben argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the.

J. E. B., PETITIONER v. ALABAMA ex rel. T. B. on writ of certiorari to the court of civil appeals of alabama [April 19, ]Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.. Although premised on equal protection principles that apply equally to gender discrimination, all our recent cases defining the scope of Batson involved alleged racial .

Facts: The State of Alabama, acting on behalf of the child, J.T., filed a complaint for paternity and child support against J.E.B. The state used its peremptory challenges to strike nine of 10 potential male jurors from the jury.

J.E.B., the defendant, used one challenge to strike the remaining male juror. Note J.E.B. v. ALABAMA ex rel. T.B.: THE SUPREME COURT MOVES CLOSER TO EIMINATION OF THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE INTRODUCTION InJE.B. v. Alabama ex rel. TB.,' the United.

J e b v alabama ex rel t b
J.E.B. v. Alabama | Casebriefs