Regarding Batson and J.E.B. challenges, which statement accurately describes the requirement?

Regarding Batson and J.E.B. challenges, which statement accurately describes the requirement?

• A. The party alleging discrimination must make a prima facie showing, and the party exercising the strike must provide a non-discriminatory reason.
• B. Discrimination can be based on race if the case is difficult.
• C. There is no requirement to show anything.
• D. The challenge can only be based on gender.

Answer: (A)

Batson and J.E.B. establish a two-step process for reviewing peremptory challenges tied to protected characteristics. First, the party opposing the strike must make a prima facie showing that the strike was motivated by a protected characteristic (race in Batson, gender in J.E.B.). If that showing is made, the party offering the strike must articulate a race-neutral (or gender-neutral) explanation for the strike. Then the opponent may argue that the explanation is a pretext for discrimination. This two-part requirement is why the correct statement describes both the prima facie showing and a non-discriminatory reason. The other options misstate the framework: discrimination based on race is not permissible regardless of case difficulty; there is indeed a requirement to show something; and the rule covers both race and gender, not only gender.

Batson and J.E.B. establish a two-step process for reviewing peremptory challenges tied to protected characteristics. First, the party opposing the strike must make a prima facie showing that the strike was motivated by a protected characteristic (race in Batson, gender in J.E.B.). If that showing is made, the party offering the strike must articulate a race-neutral (or gender-neutral) explanation for the strike. Then the opponent may argue that the explanation is a pretext for discrimination. This two-part requirement is why the correct statement describes both the prima facie showing and a non-discriminatory reason. The other options misstate the framework: discrimination based on race is not permissible regardless of case difficulty; there is indeed a requirement to show something; and the rule covers both race and gender, not only gender.