Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawJury SelectionEqual ProtectionState ActionPeremptory Challengesperemptory challengecivil jury

Facts

Edmonson, a black construction worker, brought a negligence action against Leesville Concrete in federal court and demanded a jury trial. During voir dire, Leesville used two of its three statutory peremptory challenges to remove black prospective jurors. Edmonson asked the district court to require race-neutral explanations under Batson, but the court refused because it viewed Batson as limited to criminal cases. The jury as seated included 11 white jurors and 1 black juror, and returned a verdict for Edmonson reduced by contributory negligence.

Issue

May a private litigant in a civil case use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of race? If not, may the opposing civil litigant object on behalf of the excluded jurors?

Rule

In a civil trial, a private litigant's racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is attributable to the government and violates the equal protection rights of the excluded jurors. An opposing litigant may raise those jurors' rights because third-party standing exists where the litigant suffers a concrete injury, has a close relation to the excluded venireperson, and the venireperson faces hindrances to protecting his or her own interests. Whether a prima facie case of discrimination exists is determined under Batson by considering all relevant circumstances, including patterns of strikes.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal products-liability trial in Denver, plaintiff Nora Patel objects after defendant High Mesa Fabrication uses two peremptory challenges to remove Black prospective jurors. Defense counsel argues that because peremptories are exercised by private parties, the Constitution is not implicated.

How should the judge rule on the threshold state-action issue?

Explanation. The majority held that the first part of the Lugar inquiry is plainly satisfied for peremptory challenges: they derive entirely from governmental authority, exist only because statutes or decisional law authorize them, and have no significance outside court. Thus, a private litigant's use of peremptories in a civil trial satisfies the threshold source-in-governmental-authority requirement. (Derived from Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991).)