18 U.S.C. § 243
Exclusion of jurors on account of race or color
No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and whoever, being an officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, excludes or fails to summon any citizen for such cause, shall be fined not more than $5,000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1937–2024 · leading case: Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991).
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991). “See 18 U. S. C. § 243 . In a trilogy of cases decided soon after enactment of this prohibition, our Court confirmed the validity of the statute, as well as the broader constitutional imperative of race neutrality in jury selection.”
Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545 (1979). “He pointed out that Congress had made it a crime to discriminate in this manner, 18 U. S. C. § 243 , [5] and that civil remedies at law and equity were available to members of the class discriminated against.”
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991). “§ 1861 , and nonexclusion on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status, 18 U. S. C. § 243 ; 28 U. S. C. § 1862 . Statutes prescribe many of the details of the jury plan, 28 U.”
Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. 284 (2019). “18 U. S. C. §243 . The Act pro- vides: “No citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State on account of race, color, or previ- ous…”
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). “[4] In this Court, petitioner has argued that the prosecutor's conduct violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to an impartial jury and to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community.”
Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339 (1984). “JUSTICE WHITE, in an opinion joined by JUSTICES BRENNAN and POWELL, concluded that standing would implement the strong statutory policy of 18 U. S. C. § 243 , which provides that no qualified citizen "shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the…”
Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972). “[8] Moreover, Congress *498 has made it a crime for a public official to exclude anyone from a grand or petit jury on the basis of race, 18 U. S. C. § 243 , and this Court upheld the statute, approving the congressional determination that such exclusion would violate the express…”
Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950). “696 , 18 U. S. C. § 243 . The substantive right is thus clear.”
Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986). “Federal law provides a criminal prohibition against discrimination in the selection of grand jurors, 18 U. S. C. § 243 , but according to statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, that section has not been the basis for a single prosecution in…”
Robert Glen Coe, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee, 161 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 1999). “Three justices (Marshall, Douglas, and Stewart) believed that this entitlement stemmed from the Constitution and from the criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 243 , that forbids public officials from excluding people from grand jury service because of their race.”
Thomas C. Ramseur v. Howard C. Beyer, Superintendent, New Jersey State Prison, Robert Del Tufo, New Jersey Attorney Gen., 983 F.2d 1215 (3d Cir. 1992). “Since Ramseur has not invoked 18 U.S.C. § 243 , we are likewise not required to decide whether he could assert rights under this statute, which Congress enacted pursuant to Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment and which criminalizes racial discrimination in the selection of…”
Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (1956). “336 , as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 243 . And since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment this Court has consistently held that systematic exclusion of Negroes from grand-jury service violates the Federal Constitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.