Does the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' methodology for evaluating a prosecutor's facially race-neutral reasons for purposeful discrimination violate the constitutional right to equal protection in jury selection?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Capital Case This case arises from the State’s peremptory challenge to a Black juror which Mr. Harper challenged as purposefully discriminatory. At trial, the Batson challenge reached the second step of analysis, and the State gave facially raceneutral reasons for the peremptory strike. The trial court denied the Batson challenge and the appeals court upheld the denial. In state habeas proceedings, Mr. Harper raised an claim based on appellate counsel’s failure to make all arguments supporting the Batson violation on appeal. Mr. Harper raised both claims in federal habeas proceedings. The district court denied habeas relief and both the district court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a Certificate of Appealability to appeal the two claims. The following questions arise: 1) Does the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ methodology for evaluating a prosecutor’s facially race-neutral reasons for purposeful discrimination—a methodology this Court has specifically rejected and that other circuit courts do not apply—violate the constitutional right to equal protection in jury selection? 2) Would application of the correct constitutional standard have resulted in the Fifth Circuit granting a Certificate of Appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of Mr. Harper’s Batson-related claims? i