Race bias in jury selection
Pitchford v. Cain
In brief
Pitchford won a 5-4 ruling that requires further review of his challenge to the prosecutor's strikes of four Black prospective jurors.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · May 28, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
- What it’s about
- The Court ruled 5–4 for Terry Pitchford, holding that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal Batson rules and unreasonably found that Pitchford had waived his chance to challenge the prosecutor’s stated reasons for striking four Black prospective jurors.
- Who it affects
- The decision reinforces that state courts cannot use waiver rules to prevent consideration of a defendant's response to allegedly race-based jury strikes.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Question presented
Whether, under the standards set forth in AEDPA, 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.
What the Court decided
The vote
From the opinions
“The Mississippi Supreme Court "unreasonably applied the clearly established Batson precedents" and wrongly treated Pitchford's opportunity to respond as waived.”
What's next
The case returns to the Fifth Circuit for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
Docket activity
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - BK
Argued. For petitioner: Joseph J. Perkovich, New York, N. Y. For respondents: Scott G. Stewart, Solicitor General, Jackson, Miss.; and Emily M. Ferguson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
Argued. For petitioner: Joseph J. Perkovich, New York, N. Y. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondents: Scott G. Stewart, Solicitor General, Jackson, Miss.; and Emily M. Ferguson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Pitchford?
- The Court said Mississippi unreasonably found that Pitchford waived his chance to rebut the prosecutor's reasons for four jury strikes.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.