## Facts

- African-American citizens of Greene County, Alabama, filed a federal civil class action alleging racial exclusion from grand and petit jury service.
- Alabama used county jury commissions appointed by the Governor to compile jury rolls under a statute requiring selection of persons “generally reputed to be honest and intelligent” and “esteemed in the community for their integrity, good character and sound judgment.”
- For roughly 12 years, the Governor’s appointees to the Greene County jury commission were white, although the county population was majority Black.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were qualified and willing to serve but were never summoned, and that local officials systematically excluded Black citizens from jury rolls and venires.
- Evidence showed severe disparity: although the county was about 75% Black (1960 census), Black representation on jury lists in 1961–1963 was about 7%.
- After prior litigation and statutory changes, Black representation on the roll increased to about 32%, while the county remained about 65% Black (1967).
- A three-judge federal district court found unconstitutional racial discrimination in how local officials prepared jury lists.

## Issues

1. Whether systematic racial discrimination in jury selection may be challenged through a civil class action by excluded citizens, rather than only through criminal case challenges.
2. Whether Alabama’s qualitative juror-selection criteria (e.g., “honest and intelligent,” “good character”) are unconstitutional on their face under the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Whether federal courts should order the Governor to vacate existing jury commission appointments or compel appointment of Black commissioners as part of the remedy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court.
- The Court held there was no jurisdictional or procedural bar to challenging systematic jury discrimination through a civil class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Court declined to invalidate the Alabama jury-selection statute on its face, concluding the statute was not unconstitutional merely because it vested discretion in officials through qualitative standards.
- The Court upheld relief directed at correcting discriminatory administration by local officials, rather than ordering structural changes to the State’s appointment process.
- The Court refused to order the Governor to replace commissioners or appoint Black commissioners absent proof that the Governor’s selection of commissioners was itself unconstitutional.

## Legal Principles

- Excluded citizens may bring a civil action to challenge systemic racial discrimination in jury selection and seek equitable relief.
- States may set relevant juror qualifications, including qualitative character and intelligence standards, so long as the criteria are facially neutral and capable of constitutional application.
- A facially neutral jury-selection statute is not invalid solely because it grants discretion; the constitutional violation may lie in discriminatory administration.
- Federal equitable relief may be detailed and enforceable to end discriminatory jury-selection practices, but courts are not required to restructure state appointment systems or mandate race-based composition of appointive bodies without a proven constitutional violation in those appointments.

## Conclusion

The Court approved the use of a civil class action to remedy systematic racial exclusion from jury service, upheld Alabama’s facially neutral juror-qualification statute, and limited the remedy to injunctive relief against discriminatory implementation by local officials rather than compelled changes to the State’s jury commission appointments.


Carter v. Jury Comm’n of Greene Cnty., 396 U.S. 320 (1970)