Concurrence O'Connor End date 1994 | Concurrence Kennedy | |
Full case name J. E. B., Petitioner v. Alabama ex rel. T. B. Citations 511 U.S. 127 (more)114 S.Ct. 1419, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,967, 128 L.Ed.2d 89, 62 USLW 4219 Prior history Certiorari to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals 606 So.2d 156 Majority Blackmun, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg Similar Batson v Kentucky, Edmonson v Leesville Concrete, Miller‑El v Dretke, Snyder v Louisiana, Heath v Alabama | ||
J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional. J.E.B. extended the court's existing precedent in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional, and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials. As in Batson, the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Contents
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.
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.