Davis v. Minnesota
511 U.S. 1115 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Supreme Court declined to extend the protections of Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits race-based peremptory strikes, to strikes based on a potential juror's religious affiliation, thereby leaving the lower court's decision permitting such a strike in place.
Facts:
- During jury selection for the aggravated robbery trial of petitioner Davis, a black man, the prosecutor used a peremptory strike.
- The strike was used to remove another black man from the potential jury pool.
- When challenged under Batson v. Kentucky to provide a race-neutral reason, the prosecutor stated the strike was because the man was a Jehovah's Witness.
- The prosecutor explained her belief, based on her experience, that Jehovah's Witnesses are "reluctant to exercise authority over their fellow human beings."
Procedural Posture:
- At his criminal trial in a Minnesota state court, Davis objected to the prosecutor's peremptory strike of a juror.
- The trial court overruled the objection, accepted the prosecutor's religion-based reason for the strike, and Davis was subsequently convicted.
- Davis (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Minnesota, arguing that Batson should be extended to prohibit strikes based on religion.
- The Supreme Court of Minnesota (appellee) affirmed the conviction, holding that Batson was confined to race-based discrimination.
- Davis (petitioner) then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the Supreme Court grant a writ of certiorari to determine if the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the use of peremptory strikes to exclude potential jurors based solely on their religious affiliation?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari without a written opinion. By denying the petition, the Court chose not to decide whether the Equal Protection Clause forbids peremptory strikes based on religion, leaving the decision of the Supreme Court of Minnesota in place.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes. The Court should have granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the recent decision in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., which extended Batson's equal protection analysis to gender-based strikes. The Minnesota Supreme Court's reasoning rested on the now-defunct premise that Batson applied only to race. Justice Thomas argues that after J.E.B., there is no principled reason to withhold Batson's protection from classifications that receive heightened scrutiny, such as religion, and suggests the Court is simply unwilling to confront the logical ramifications of its J.E.B. decision.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
No. Justice Ginsburg concurred in the denial of certiorari, highlighting two practical distinctions between religion and race or gender that were noted by the court below. First, religious affiliation is not as self-evident as race or gender. Second, direct inquiry into a potential juror's religious beliefs during voir dire is ordinarily considered improper and prejudicial. These practical difficulties provide a basis for declining to extend the Batson framework to religion.
Analysis:
The Court's denial of certiorari in this case signaled its hesitation to expand the Batson framework to prohibit peremptory strikes based on religion, leaving a significant question in equal protection jurisprudence unresolved. This inaction left in place a split among lower courts and failed to clarify the full scope of the Court's recent J.E.B. decision, which had extended Batson to gender. The dissent from the denial forcefully argues that the logic of J.E.B. compels extension to other heightened-scrutiny classifications like religion, framing the Court's refusal as an avoidance of the doctrinal consequences of its own precedents, which could ultimately threaten the viability of the peremptory strike itself.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Minnesota