## Facts

- Thiel sued Southern Pacific Company for negligence in California state court, alleging railroad agents knew he was not mentally normal, failed to guard him, and did not stop the train before he exited a moving train and was injured.
- Southern Pacific removed the case to federal district court on diversity grounds; Thiel’s efforts to obtain remand were denied.
- Thiel demanded a jury trial and moved to strike the entire federal jury panel, alleging purposeful selection favoring business and employer viewpoints and discrimination against employees and poorer citizens.
- Evidence showed the clerk responsible for jury lists intentionally and systematically omitted persons who worked for a daily wage, largely to avoid imposing financial hardship from jury service.
- The district court denied the motion to strike the panel; Thiel sought to withdraw his jury demand, but Southern Pacific did not consent.
- Thiel renewed objections during empanelment and also asserted that multiple jurors were closely connected with Southern Pacific; the court denied the challenges.
- The jury returned a verdict for Southern Pacific; the district court denied post-trial relief.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether the motion to strike the jury panel was properly denied.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may permit a jury panel to be formed through a process that intentionally and systematically excludes daily wage earners as a class.
2. Whether denial of a motion to strike such a panel requires reversal without a showing of actual prejudice in the particular trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed.
- A federal jury panel intentionally and systematically excluding daily wage earners was unlawfully constituted.
- Discrimination against daily wage earners as a class was not justified by federal or state law.
- Reversal was warranted under the Court’s supervisory authority over the administration of justice in federal courts.
- The Court did not require proof that Thiel was actually prejudiced or that he belonged to the excluded class.

## Legal Principles

- Federal jury panels must be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community; purposeful exclusion of an identifiable class of eligible citizens is unlawful.
- The pay period or wage status of an individual is irrelevant to juror eligibility and capacity to serve.
- Trial courts may excuse individual jurors for undue financial hardship, but may not impose blanket exclusions of an entire economic class without individualized assessment.
- Jury service is a civic duty as well as a privilege; financial inconvenience excuses service only when it would impose a real burden.
- Even if the seated jury includes some persons from broadly similar backgrounds, systematic exclusion at the panel stage is a structural defect requiring corrective action.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment because the jury-selection process intentionally and systematically excluded daily wage earners from the federal jury panel, a form of class-based discrimination inconsistent with the requirement that federal juries be drawn from a representative cross-section of the community.


Thiel v. S. Pac. Co., 328 U.S. 217 (1946)