JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB
Citations
- 511 U.S. 127
- 114 S. Ct. 1419
- 128 L. Ed. 2d 89
- 1994 U.S. LEXIS 3121
- 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 42
- 94 Daily Journal DAR 5174
- 62 U.S.L.W. 4219
- 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2680
- 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,967
About this case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1994 United States Supreme Court case
This article has multiple issues. Please help **improve it ** or discuss these issues on the **talk page **. (Learn how and when to remove these messages )
(Learn how and when to remove this message )
J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), is a landmark decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States
holding that peremptory challenges
based solely on a prospective juror's sex are unconstitutional.[1]
J.E.B. extended the court's existing precedent in _Batson v. Kentucky
_ (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional,[2]
and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company
_ (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials.[3]
As in Batson, the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause
.[citation needed
_]
Background
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B.&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
]
On behalf of T.B., the mother of a minor child, the state sued J.E.B. for child support
in Jackson County, Alabama
. During jury selection, challenges intentionally targeted male potential jurors resulting in an all-female jury.[_citation needed
_]
Decision
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B.&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Decision")
]
The majority opinion was written by Justice Blackmun
. Justice O'Connor
wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Kennedy
separately concurred in the judgment. Chief Justice Rehnquist
filed a separate dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia
also filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist
and Justice Thomas
.[_citation needed
_]
See also
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B.&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: See also")
]
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B.&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: References")
]
- ↑ J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994).
- ↑ _Batson v. Kentucky _, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
- ↑ _Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. _, 500 U.S. 614 (1991).
Further reading
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B.&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: Further reading")
]
- Currie, C. M.; Pillick, A. M. (1996). "Sex Discrimination in the Selection and Participation of Female Jurors: A Post-J.E.B. Analysis". Judges' Journal. 35 (1): 2–6, 38–41. ISSN 0047-2972 .
- Harden, L. L. M. (1995). "The End of the Peremptory Challenge? The Implications of J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B. for Jury Selection in Alabama". Alabama Law Review. 47: 243. ISSN 0002-4279 .
- Wichterman, S. L. (1995). "JEB v. Alabama ex rel. TB: Gender-Based Peremptory Challenges on Trial" . Northern Illinois University Law Review. 16: 209. ISSN 0734-1490 . Archived from the original on April 17, 2009.
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B.&action=edit§ion=6 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Text of J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
United States equal protection and criminal procedure case law
Discrimination in jury selection
- *Glasser interpreted the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment. **Thiel and Edmonson were civil cases.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B.&oldid=1351961449 "
[United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court stubs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquis
…
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs the exercise of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor in a criminal trial
- holding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs the exercise of peremptory challenges by a prosecutor in a criminal trial
- holding that the Equal Protection Clause also prohibits discrimination in jury selection on the basis of gender
- holding that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror’s sex is unconstitutional
- holding that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional
- recognizing that potential jurors, as well as litigants, have a right based in the equal protection clause to nondiscriminatory jury selection procedures
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Blackmun
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.