Supreme Court to Address Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

While the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded oral arguments for the year, it continues to add cases to its docket. On December 12, 2025, the justices agreed to consider Pitchford v. Cain, which involves constitutional protections against racial discrimination in jury selection.

Facts of the Case

A Mississippi jury convicted Pitchford of capital murder in 2006 for participating in an armed robbery during which the store owner, Reuben Britt, was shot to death by Pitchford’s accomplice. Pitchford appealed his conviction and sentence to the Mississippi Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecutor in his capital murder trial struck four potential jurors in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

Under the Batson framework, (1) a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a prosecutor made racially discriminatory strikes; (2) if he does, the State must then present race-neutral reasons for the strikes; and (3) the trial court must then determine whether the defendant has proved purposeful discrimination.

With respect to his Batson challenge, Pitchford argued that a comparative juror analysis revealed the State’s proffered race-neutral reasons to be pretextual. (recounting Pitchford’s argument “that some of the reasons the State proffered for its strikes of blacks were also true of whites the State did not strike”). The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled, however, that Pitchford “did not present these arguments to the trial court during the voir dire process or during post-trial motions.” Accordingly, the court concluded no Batson violation had occurred because “Pitchford provided the trial court no rebuttal to the State’s race-neutral reasons.”

After exhausting his state court remedies, Pitchford filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court, again raising his Batson claim. The district court held that the trial court’s refusal to permit rebuttal prevented meaningful enforcement of Batson and

was “contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.” It ordered the State to release or retry Pitchford within 180 days.

Fifth Circuit’s Decision

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding the state court adjudication was reasonable because the trial court implicitly conducted the third step of Batson analysis. The appeals court also relied on Mississippi precedent that when the trial record contains no argument in rebuttal of a proffered race neutral explanation, the trial court must decide the Batson challenge based solely on the prosecution’s explanations, without considering other evidence before the trial court bearing upon pretext.

According to the Fifth Circuit, the district court decision rested on the conclusion that the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in its waiver analysis because Pitchford sufficiently objected at the bench conference. “However, even assuming its determination was correct,” the appeals court explained, “that would not entitle Pitchford to habeas relief” because the standard under the federal law governing post-conviction claims is whether the state supreme court’s decision was “an ‘objectively unreasonable’ application of a Supreme Court ‘holding[].’”

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The justices have agreed to consider the following question:

Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor’s asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.

The Court will likely hear oral arguments in March or April, with a decision by late June or early July. Please check back for updates.