Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p 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.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.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B. abstract "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.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.".