J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 2, 1993 Decided April 19, 1994
Full case name	J. E. B., Petitioner v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.
Citations	511 U.S. 127 (more) 114 S.Ct. 1419, 64 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,967, 128 L.Ed.2d 89, 62 USLW 4219
Prior history	Certiorari to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals 606 So.2d 156
Holding
Intentional discrimination on the basis of gender by state actors in the use of peremptory strikes in jury selection violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority	Blackmun, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg
Concurrence	O'Connor
Concurrence	Kennedy
Dissent	Rehnquist
Dissent	Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional. J.E.B. extended the court's existing precedent in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional, and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials. As in Batson, the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause.

On behalf of T.B., the mother of a minor child, the state sued J.E.B. for child support in Jackson County, Alabama. During jury selection, challenges intentionally targeted male potential jurors resulting in an all-female jury.

The Majority opinion was written by Justice Blackmun. Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Kennedy separately concurred in the judgment. Chief Justice Rehnquist filed a separate dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia also filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas.