Did the Ninth Circuit err in affirming the district court's denial of Kirk Saintcalle's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the state court's decision requiring him to show racism to establish a violation of this Court's holding in Batson v. Kentucky, rather than purposeful discrimination, was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of the law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts?

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Kirk Saintcalle is an African American man who was tried and convicted in Washington state court by a jury of none of his peers. The State used a peremptory challenge to exclude the sole African American member of the venire, Anna Tolson, despite previously acknowledging that Ms. Tolson was “probably representative of the perfect juror.” Throughout voir dire, the State manifested a desire to strike her, not due to a legitimate race-neutral reason, but due to purposeful discrimination. Nonetheless, when Mr. Saintcalle challenged the effort to strike her based on this Court’s holding in Batson v. Kentucky, the trial court denied the challenge and the Washington Supreme Court upheld that ruling, as it had done in every other Batson case it had previously heard, because Mr. Saintcalle had failed to show “deceit and racism.” In affirming the decision of the Washington Supreme Court, the district court and Ninth Circuit have decided an important federal question in a way that directly conflicts with this Court’s relevant precedent in Batson and its progeny. By denying Mr. Saintcalle relief because he failed to show the State’s racist intent, rather than this Court’s requisite standard of purposeful racial discrimination, the courts violated Mr. Saintcalle’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and, in upholding that denial, the Ninth Circuit corrupted the vital holdings of this Court’s precedent. In recent years, this Court has granted relief in Batson cases, making it plain that racial discrimination in jury selection is not tolerated, even under a deferential standard of review. This petition presents the following important Equal Protection issue: 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in affirming the district court’s denial of Kirk Saintcalle’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the state court’s decision requiring him to show racism to establish a violation of this Court’s holding in Batson v. Kentucky, rather than purposeful discrimination, was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of the law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts?