U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 121— JURIES; TRIAL BY JURY

28 U.S.C. § 1865

Qualifications for jury service

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, on his initiative or upon recommendation of the clerk or jury commission, or the clerk under supervision of the court if the court’s jury selection plan so authorizes, shall determine solely on the basis of information provided on the juror qualification form and other competent evidence whether a person is unqualified for, or exempt, or to be excused from jury service. The clerk shall enter such determination in the space provided on the juror qualification form and in any alphabetical list of names drawn from the master jury wheel. If a person did not appear in response to a summons, such fact shall be noted on said list.(b) In making such determination the chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, or the clerk if the court’s jury selection plan so provides, shall deem any person qualified to serve on grand and petit juries in the district court unless he—(1) is not a citizen of the United States eighteen years old who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district;(2) is unable to read, write, and understand the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to fill out satisfactorily the juror qualification form;(3) is unable to speak the English language;(4) is incapable, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, to render satisfactory jury service; or(5) has a charge pending against him for the commission of, or has been convicted in a State or Federal court of record of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and his civil rights have not been restored.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 952; Pub. L. 90–274, § 101, Mar. 27, 1968, 82 Stat. 58; Pub. L. 92–269, § 1, Apr. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 117; Pub. L. 95–572, § 3(a), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2453; Pub. L. 100–702, title VIII, § 803(b), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4658; Pub. L. 106–518, title III, § 305, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2418.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 181, 413 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 100, 277, 36 Stat. 1121, 1164).

Section consolidates a part of section 181 with section 413 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. Other provisions of said section 181 are incorporated in section 115 of this title.

Word “jurors” was changed to “grand and petit jurors” upon authority of Agnew v. United States, 1897, 17 S.Ct. 235, 165 U.S. 36, 41 L.Ed. 624, construing such term to include both types of jurors.

The last sentence of subsection (a) was added to conform with existing practice in many districts. Subsection (b) extends to all districts a provision of section 181 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which was designed for the convenience of the districts in Ohio and permitted jurors drawn for service at Cleveland, Toledo, and Columbus to serve at Youngstown, Lima, and Steubenville, respectively.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–518, § 305(1), inserted “or the clerk under supervision of the court if the court’s jury selection plan so authorizes,” after “jury commission,”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–518, § 305(2), inserted “or the clerk if the court’s jury selection plan so provides,” after “may provide,” in introductory provisions.

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–702 substituted “in any alphabetical” for “the alphabetical”.

1978—Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 95–572 struck out “by pardon or amnesty” after “civil rights have not been restored”.

1972—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 92–269 substituted “eighteen years old” for “twenty-one years old”.

1968—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 90–274 substituted provisions for the excusing of persons from jury service by the chief judge of the district court or by other district court judge for provisions requiring the selection of jurors so as to be most favorable to an impartial trial and so as to minimize the expense and burden of jury service.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–274 substituted provisions setting out the conditions of ineligibility for jury service for provisions authorizing the service of jurors in a place within the district other than the place for which the jurors were summoned.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–572 applicable with respect to any grand or petit juror summoned for service or actually serving on or after Nov. 2, 1978, see section 7(a) of Pub. L. 95–572, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1363 of this title.

Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–274 effective 270 days after Mar. 27, 1968, except as to cases in which an indictment has been returned or a petit jury empaneled prior to such effective date, see section 104 of Pub. L. 90–274, set out as a note under section 1861 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 281 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b) lists situations in which an individual is statutorily disqualified from serving as a juror, including when he “has a charge pending against him for the commission of, or has been convicted in a State or Federal court or record of, a crime punishable by…”
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991). · cites it 2× “, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1865 (b)(2), (3) (English-language ability required for federal jury service), only to encounter disqualification because he knows a second language as well.”
United States v. Mark Snarr, 704 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 1865 . As relevant, a person is disqualified from service under the Act’s provisions if he is unable “by reason of mental or physical infirmity, to render satisfactory jury service.”
Billy Walker v. United States, 800 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 16× “§ 40-20-112 (loss of right to vote); § 40-20-114 (loss of right to hold public office); § 22-1-102 (loss of right to serve on a state jury); 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (loss of right to serve on a federal jury).”
McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984). · cites it 2× “28 U. S. C. § 1865 (1976 ed. and Supp. V).”
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991). · cites it 2× “In the federal system, Congress has established the qualifications for jury service, see 28 U. S. C. § 1865 , and has outlined the procedures by which jurors are selected.”
United States v. Armsbury, 408 F. Supp. 1130 (D. Or. 1976). · cites it 6× “Defendant is denied his right to be judged by his peers, including ex-felons who are presently excluded from jury service under 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b)(5). 2. Defendant is denied his right to a jury comprised of a fair cross section of the community because of the jury…”
United States v. Salvador Hernandez-Estrada, 749 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “9 Hernandez concludes that the 9 Question 4 asked: “Do you read, write, speak, and understand the English language?” The parties agree that the relevant standard, set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b)(2), (3), requires only the disqualification of any otherwise-eligible person who…”
State v. Haugen, 243 P.3d 31 (Or. 2010). · cites it 4× “A federal statute provides that the ability to speak and understand English is a requirement for service on a federal jury, 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b)(2), (3), and every court that has considered the issue has upheld that requirement against constitutional challenge.”
United States v. Flores Rivera, 56 F.3d 319 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b) requires that jurors be dismissed if they cannot demonstrate a minimum proficiency in English.”
United States v. Luis Manuel Rodriguez-Lara, 421 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “at 10; 28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b). Members of the armed forces in active service, members of police and fire departments, and public officers actively engaged in the performance of their official duties are exempt from service.”
United States v. Jermaine Boney, United States of Am. v. Donald A. Holloman, 977 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 1865 (b)(5). But § 1867 establishes strict procedural limitations on the ability of parties to raise objections to the jury selection process.”
Show all 281 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1865(b)(5) — 3 cases
United States v. Ramiro Cantu, Jr., 229 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2000).
United States v. Sanchez, 380 F. Supp. 1260 (N.D. Tex. 1973).
United States v. Drew Miller (6th Cir. 2025).
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.