## Facts

- Alabama, on behalf of a child’s mother, brought a civil action to establish paternity and obtain child support from J.E.B.
- During jury selection, the State used 9 of 10 peremptory challenges to strike male prospective jurors.
- The trial court overruled J.E.B.’s objection that peremptory strikes based on gender violate equal protection and seated an all-female jury.
- The jury found J.E.B. to be the father, and the court entered a child-support order.
- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state, in a civil case, from using peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors solely because of their gender.

## Decision

- Reversed, 6–3 (Justice Blackmun).
- The Equal Protection Clause bars intentional gender discrimination by state actors in the exercise of peremptory challenges in jury selection.
- The State’s asserted rationale—that men would be more sympathetic to an alleged father and women to the mother—rested on group stereotypes and could not justify gender-based strikes.
- The Court stated that prohibiting gender-based peremptory strikes does not eliminate peremptory challenges; it restricts only the use of gender as a proxy for presumed bias.

## Legal Principles

- State-sponsored exclusion of jurors based solely on gender violates the Equal Protection Clause.
- Gender classifications are subject to heightened equal protection scrutiny and require an exceedingly persuasive justification.
- Equal protection limits on jury selection protect litigants, excluded jurors, and public confidence in the courts.
- Peremptory challenges remain permissible, but they may not be exercised on impermissible classifications such as gender.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a state may not use peremptory challenges in a civil trial to exclude prospective jurors solely because they are men or women, extending equal protection limits on discriminatory jury selection to gender-based strikes.


J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994)