Strauder v. West Virginia – Invalidated law barring blacks from juries

t Strong1879. Invalidated Virginia’s law barring blacks from juries. Facts. A state statute provided that “all white male persons who are twenty-one years of age who are citizens of this State shall be eligible to serve as jurors.” P, a black, is convicted of murder by a jury from which all blacks have been removed pursuant to this statute.

t Holding. Act on its fact discriminates against blacks, and therefore violates the Equal ProtectionClause.

t Note. Where a law is found to discriminate “on its face,” the SCt will not require that it be shown to have had an actual discriminatory impact in the case at hand. Thus, in Strauder, P was not required to show that he would not have been convicted by a jury containing blacks, or even to show that some blacks would have been seated on the jury had the statute not been in force. The mere risk of discriminatory impact was sufficient, given the facial discrimination.

t Koppelman

n Strong’s opinion, despite its (racist?) description of the freed slaves as “mere children,” is the highwater mark of judicial protection of blacks after the Civil War.

n Note how limited the pool of potential jurors may be, according to Strong. There is, for example, no problem with excluding women. Then again, there is some textual warranty for this sex discrimination (the 14^th amendment itself specifically countenances the exclusion of women from voting.)

n To what extent does the SCt’s conclusion here flow from the text of the 14^th Amendment?

(1) Why does Strauderhave standing to challenge the exclusion of blacks from his jury – how was he harmed by being tried by an all-white jury?

(2) “Can one denounce racial classifications because they rest on irrelevant or nonexistent distinctions and simultaneously assert that outcomes would be different if the perspectives of the excluded group were recognized?” (Brest and Levinson)

n There is ambiguity in SCt’s opinion as to which argument carries more weight:

(1) Opposition to ideology of black inferiority endorsed by Dred Scott;

(2) Opposition to “unfriendly legislation” derived from McCulloch’s notion that Congress’ intent by legislation must be in accord with constitutional norms. (AK: how does SCt tell whether legislation is unfriendly to blacks?)

n How important is the SCt’s conclusion that the freed slaves were “abject and ignorant”? If that conclusion were wrong, would the case come out differently?

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 687