Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.
500 U.S. 614 (1991)
Rule of Law:
A private litigant in a civil case may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race, as this constitutes state action that violates the equal protection rights of the excluded jurors under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Facts:
- Thaddeus Donald Edmonson, a construction worker, was injured in a jobsite accident at Fort Polk, a federal enclave in Louisiana.
- An employee of Leesville Concrete Company allegedly permitted a company truck to roll backward and pin Edmonson against construction equipment.
- Edmonson sued Leesville Concrete Company for negligence in federal court.
- During jury selection (voir dire), Leesville's attorney used two of its three peremptory challenges to remove black persons from the prospective jury panel.
- Edmonson himself is black.
Procedural Posture:
- Thaddeus Edmonson sued Leesville Concrete Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
- During jury selection, Edmonson requested that the court require Leesville to provide a race-neutral reason for striking two black prospective jurors, citing Batson v. Kentucky.
- The District Court denied the request, ruling that Batson does not apply in civil proceedings.
- The jury found for Edmonson but reduced his award by 80% for contributory negligence.
- Edmonson, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where a divided panel reversed the District Court.
- The Fifth Circuit then reheard the case en banc and affirmed the District Court's original judgment, holding that a private litigant's use of peremptory challenges is not state action.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private litigant's use of peremptory challenges in a civil case to exclude jurors on account of their race constitute state action that violates the equal protection rights of the challenged jurors?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. A private litigant's use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race constitutes state action and violates the equal protection rights of the excluded jurors. The Court applied the two-part 'state action' test from Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. First, the right to exercise peremptory challenges has its source in governmental authority, as it is a power granted by federal statute and has no meaning outside a court of law. Second, a private litigant must be deemed a state actor when using these challenges. This conclusion is based on three factors: (1) the litigant relies on 'overt, significant assistance' from the government, as the entire jury system—from summoning jurors to the judge's enforcement of the challenge—is a government-run process; (2) the litigant is performing a traditional governmental function by selecting a quintessential governmental body, the jury; and (3) the injury of discrimination is made more severe because it occurs within the courthouse, a symbol of governmental authority. Finally, following Powers v. Ohio, the opposing litigant has third-party standing to raise the equal protection claim on behalf of the excluded jurors.
Dissenting - Justice O’Connor
No. The action of a private attorney exercising a peremptory challenge is fundamentally a matter of private choice, not state action. The government's involvement is not 'overt and significant'; the judge merely acquiesces in the litigant's private decision and does not compel or encourage it. Furthermore, exercising a peremptory challenge is not a traditional government function, but rather a long-standing tradition of unguided private choice designed to help a litigant secure a fair trial. Unlike in cases like Shelley v. Kraemer, the state is not enforcing a discriminatory agreement but is merely providing a neutral forum for dispute resolution. The holding also contradicts Polk County v. Dodson, which established that even a state-employed public defender does not act for the state when performing traditional adversarial functions, as an attorney's primary duty is to their client, not the government.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The Court's holding is wrong in principle and will have unfortunate practical consequences. The decision will not necessarily help minority litigants, as it prevents minority defendants from using peremptory challenges to create a more racially diverse jury. More importantly, it imposes an enormous burden on trial courts, which must now conduct mini-trials (Batson hearings) on the motivations behind every peremptory challenge in every civil case. This adds another layer of complexity to the justice system, diverting time and resources from the merits of the case. While the decision has symbolic value in its hostility to race-based judgments, the practical cost to the overall system of justice is too high.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the state action doctrine by extending the constitutional prohibition on race-based peremptory challenges, established for criminal prosecutors in Batson v. Kentucky, to private litigants in civil cases. By classifying the exercise of a peremptory challenge within the government-controlled jury system as 'state action,' the Court subjected a private attorney's litigation tactics to Equal Protection scrutiny. This ruling changed the landscape of civil litigation by creating a new procedural requirement for parties to provide race-neutral reasons for their jury strikes if challenged. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in preventing discrimination within the courtroom itself, even when the actors are private individuals.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"