Which decision prohibits racially based peremptory challenges in jury selection?

Which decision prohibits racially based peremptory challenges in jury selection?

• A. Swain v. Alabama
• B. Miller-El v. Dretke
• C. Batson v. Kentucky
• D. Edmonson v. Leesville

Answer: (C)

Racially based peremptory challenges in jury selection are prohibited by Batson v. Kentucky. The decision holds that striking potential jurors solely because of their race violates the Equal Protection Clause. It also sets up a practical framework for challenging such strikes: first, a party can show a prima facie case that race was a factor in the challenged jurors’ exclusion; then the opposing side must provide race-neutral explanations for each strike; finally, the court assesses whether those explanations are credible or a pretext for discrimination. This shifted away from older pattern-based reasoning and established a concrete safeguard against racial bias in juror selection. Later cases extend and refine the standard, such as applying Batson to civil cases (Edmonson v. Leesville) and detailing how to evaluate the explanations (Miller-El v. Dretke).

Racially based peremptory challenges in jury selection are prohibited by Batson v. Kentucky. The decision holds that striking potential jurors solely because of their race violates the Equal Protection Clause. It also sets up a practical framework for challenging such strikes: first, a party can show a prima facie case that race was a factor in the challenged jurors’ exclusion; then the opposing side must provide race-neutral explanations for each strike; finally, the court assesses whether those explanations are credible or a pretext for discrimination. This shifted away from older pattern-based reasoning and established a concrete safeguard against racial bias in juror selection. Later cases extend and refine the standard, such as applying Batson to civil cases (Edmonson v. Leesville) and detailing how to evaluate the explanations (Miller-El v. Dretke).