Whether striking a juror based on allegations of racial prejudice is a facially race-neutral explanation under Batson

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) and its progeny, the Court set a three-part test for ensuring a party does not racially discriminate in exercising peremptory strikes against prospective jurors. Under step two, striking counsel must give a race-neutral explanation for the strike, but the Court has never defined the substantive or procedural requirements for assessing race neutrality. Also, the Court has suggested, but not ruled, that the U.S. Constitution bars any discrimination “on the basis of race,” irrespective of the race of the parties and jurors. Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2234 (2019). Respondents provided a_ facially race-based explanation for striking a prospective juror. This civil case involves African-American plaintiffs whose counsel used all six peremptory strikes to remove Caucasian jurors. For one juror, Respondents’ counsel acknowledged the strike was based on race: demographic research on the juror’s place of residence suggested “that may not be an area that is friendly to African Americans, which [plaintiff] is.” Counsel also asserted the juror’s “blue collar employment” suggested the juror “may have some innate prejudice” toward Respondents. Here, Georgia courts allowed the strike to stand, conflating race neutrality with pretext and_ stating counsel mentioned only the race of their client, not the juror’s race; the suggestion being that Batson applies only to discrimination based on the prospective juror’s race. The questions presented are: 1. Whether striking a juror based on allegations of racial prejudice, when unsubstantiated, is ii not a facially race neutral explanation under step two of Batson’s three-part test, regardless of whether the juror’s race is explicitly stated. 2. Whether compliance with step two of Batson’s three-part test requires a distinct inquiry into the facial race neutrality of the explanation, is a prerequisite for advancing to step three, and is subject to a de novo standard of review.