• Skip to main content
DONATE
DONATE
MENU
The L.G.B.T.Q. + Bar

  • Lavender Law

    Annual Conference


  • Membership

    Join Us!


  • DEI

    Consulting Practice


  • Education

    Series

    • About
    • About Us
    • Need a Lawyer?
    • Bar News
    • Leadership
    • Volunteer
    • Careers & Internships
    • Organization Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Programs
    • Advocacy
    • Allies
    • Awards
    • Bar Affiliates
    • Carceral Housing Resource
    • DEI Consulting Practice
    • Educational Series
    • Get Out the Vote
    • Job Board
    • Law Schools
    • Law Students
    • Member Practice Area Groups
    • Mental Health Resources
    • Pride Month 2023 - A Special Project
    • Prospective Judges
    • Racial Justice Resource Library
    • Events & Sponsorship
    • Annual
    • Upcoming Events
    • Out & Proud Corporate Counsel Receptions
    • Event Photos
    • Virtual Career Fair and Diversity Program for Small & Mid-Size Firms
    • Donate
    • Donate Now
    • Justice Council
    • Ways to Give
    • Lavender Law
    • Success Story Blog
    • Become a Sponsor
    • Membership
    • Become a Member
    • Renew Membership
    • Member Log In
    • Member Spotlight Blog
  • Programs

    Connect, Share Knowledge, and Succeed Within the LGBTQ+ and Ally Legal Community.

    • Advocacy
      • LGBTQ+ “Panic” Defense
      • LGBTQ+ “Panic” Defense Legislation Map
      • Safe Schools Brief Bank
      • The Blood Ban Blogs
      • Jury Access
      • Jury Access Legislative Map
      • The History of Jury Access and the LGBTQ+ Bar’s Advocacy
      • ABA Resolutions
      • Legal Advocacy – Amici Briefs and Public Comments
    • Allies
    • Awards
      • Dan Bradley Award
      • Allies for Justice Awards
      • Out & Proud Corporate Counsel Award
      • 40 Best LGBTQ+ Lawyers Under 40
      • Frank Kameny Award
      • Student Leadership Award
      • Leading Family Law Practitioner Award
      • Legal Services Justice Award
      • National LGBTQ+ Bar Law School Scholarship
      • Michael Greenberg Writing Competition
      • Trans/Nonbinary Law Graduates of Color Grant Fund
    • Bar Affiliates
    • Carceral Housing Resource
      • Resource Guide to Improve Safety in Carceral Housing for Transgender People: Letter Template
    • DEI Consulting Practice
      • Program Presenter
      • Law Schools
      • Law Firms
      • Companies
      • Blog
      • Testimonials
      • DEI Consulting Assessment
      • DEI Consulting Newsletter
      • Share Your Story
    • Educational Series
    • Get Out the Vote
    • Job Board
    • Law Schools
    • Law Students
      • Prospective Law Students
      • Law School Affiliate Program
      • Law Student Congress
      • Law School Scholarships for LGBTQ+ and Ally Law Students
      • LEAD Academy
      • Student Leadership Award
      • Anti-LGBTQ+ Speakers on University and Law School Campuses
    • Member Practice Area Groups
      • Corporate Counsel Division
      • IP Group
      • Prosecutors’ Group
      • Family Law Institute
      • Family Law Attorney Directory
    • Mental Health Resources
    • Pride Month 2023 – A Special Project
      • Pride Month Interview Transcripts
    • Prospective Judges
      • Judicial Nuts & Bolts Academy
    • Racial Justice Resource Library
    Programs Advocacy Jury Access

    Jury Access

    Jury Access

    The LGBTQ+ Bar is proud to lead the effort to prohibit the exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals from jury service on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression across the country. In 2018, the American Bar Association (ABA) unanimously approved a resolution—introduced by the LGBTQ+ Bar—urging federal, state, local, territorial and tribal courts to extend Batson v. Kentucky to prohibit discrimination against jurors on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The states of California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin have all passed jury access legislation that bans discrimination in voir dire on the basis of either or both sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, Massachusetts case law protects against such discrimination. The Equality Act was reintroduced in the 118th Congress on June 21, 2023, by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). If passed, it would amend Chapter 121 of title 28 of the United States Code to include sexual orientation and gender identity, protecting those groups from being removed from a jury without cause. Click the link to our legislative map below to learn more about protections in each of these states and about the pending Equality Act.

    Click Here to View Our Interactive Legislative Map

    What does “Jury Access” mean?

    Currently, the United States Code prohibits discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin and economic status. There are no explicit protections at the federal level to prohibit discrimination in the jury selection process on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. While the LGBTQ+ Bar believes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County should be interpreted to mandate that all federal law referencing nondiscrimination on the basis of sex also include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, that interpretation has not yet been applied in the voir dire context. Failing to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in nondiscrimination provisions denies countless individuals their constitutional right to a jury of their peers. Equality must extend to the courtroom and especially to jury composition. No one should be subjected to discrimination simply for performing a civic duty. Jury access legislation ensures that LGBTQ+ people will not be discriminated against in jury selection on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

    How does jury selection happen?

    To ensure the rights of the defendant are fully protected, defendants must be tried by a jury of their peers. Federal law requires that jurors be selected from a “fair cross-section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes.” The Supreme Court ruled in Strauder v. West Virginia that juries should be “composed of the peers or equals [of the defendant]; that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as he holds.”

    Following the creation of a jury pool, defense attorneys and prosecutors have the opportunity to question potential jurors in order to eliminate jurors with personal knowledge of the case or any biases that would prevent that person from weighing evidence impartially. If an attorney believes a potential juror is not qualified because of some bias, the objecting attorney can remove the juror for cause. But attorneys on both sides also have a certain number of strikes for any or no reason at all, which are called peremptory strikes.

    What is the holding of Batson v. Kentucky, and how does it implicate this issue?

    In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors cannot exclude racial minorities from juries based solely on their race, nor based on the assumption that members of a particular race are incapable of fairly and impartially weighing evidence. Justice Powell correctly recognized that intentional discrimination against one group of citizens “undermine[s] public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.” Thanks to this ruling, and the ruling in JB v. Alabama ex. Rel. T.B., which extended the Batson holding to sex discrimination in voir dire, attorneys who suspect that racial or sex discrimination is at play in jury selection may make what is known as a “Batson challenge.” The Batson challenge, while not a guarantee against bias, is a strong protection against racial and sex discrimination in jury selection.

    While it may seem that, logically, Batson should also extend to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, federal courts have struggled to apply the Batson decision to such peremptory juror dismissals. For example, in Carter v. Duncan, Jimmy Lee Carter was charged with committing petty theft with a prior conviction and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. During voir dire, a prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to remove a transgender woman named Chris Lewis, referring to her as a “transvestite.” When the defendant challenged the peremptory strike of Lewis, the federal district court, claiming that “cross-dressers” did not constitute a cognizable group as defined by Batson, said its hands were tied and no relief could be granted. No federal court has yet extended Batson to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

    While the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County should dictate that discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression is discrimination on the basis of sex, lower courts have not yet taken up this reasoning. Additionally, the Bostock decision applies only to federal law, not state law. We therefore need equal jury access to be enshrined in both federal and state laws.

    Why is jury access so important?

    There are three core reasons why the right to serve on a jury is critical to the dignity and equality of LGBTQ+ people. 

    1. Serving on a jury is a civic duty. To be a citizen of the United States is to be bound to a nation that upholds the shared values of liberty, equality, and freedom. America grants her citizens both rights and responsibilities in order to uphold these shared values. Jury duty is our responsibility as citizens and is vital to the administration of justice.
    2. Serving on a jury is a privilege. Very few countries around the world have a judicial system that guarantees citizens a trial by a jury of their peers. Americans should be proud of our system of checks and balances and our dedication to placing power in the hands of the people. Jury service ensures that ordinary community members themselves have a say in the justice system, and we have the right and the obligation to participate in justice.
    3. Serving on a jury is a right and to infringe upon this fundamental right is prejudicial. The fact that LGBTQ+ people can be dismissed from jury pools by federal courts and in most states today, simply because of sexual orientation or gender identity, is a violation of our dignity and citizenship. In order for LGBTQ+ people to be valued as citizens of the United States, we must be granted the duty, privilege, and right to serve on a jury.

    Moreover, from the perspective of our justice system, failing to protect LGBTQ+ prospective jurors from discrimination denies LGBTQ+ defendants their constitutional right to be tried by their peers. LGBTQ+ people are highly criminalized due to higher rates of homelessness, higher involvement in sex work, and higher chances of being HIV positive. In recent years, we have also seen an alarming and extremist attempt to criminalize drag, speaking about LGBTQ+ experiences in school and libraries, medical care for transgender children and adults, and transgender people simply for their identity. LGBTQ+ people are thus more likely to interact with our criminal justice system. Denying them the right to a jury that can include other LGBTQ+ people is a violation of their right to a fair trial.

    Just as criminal defendants have the right to a jury that is truly representative of their community, citizens have the right to be considered for a jury based only on their ability to impartially weigh evidence and administer justice, not on stereotypes and prejudices.

    What can be done?

    Several state legislatures have ensured that the exclusion of jurors from jury service on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression is prohibited. We urge every state and territory to pass similar legislation protecting against discrimination on the bases of all three categories. Additionally, the Equality Act, as currently written, would amend Chapter 121 of Title 28 of the United States Code to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, thereby explicitly providing that LGBTQ+ people cannot be removed from a jury without cause. We need to keep the pressure on the Congress to pass this comprehensive LGBTQ+ civil rights legislation. Legislation like the Equality Act represents an important step towards creating a jury that is truly composed of one’s peers. Help us pass it this term – find your legislators’ contact information today.

    Click Here to View the History of Jury Access and the LGBTQ+ Bar’s Advocacy

    In Recent News

    Batson In Transition: Prohibiting Peremptory Challenges On The Basis Of Gender Identity Or Expression (JSTOR)

    A Jury of Your Peers – The Right to a Jury Trial Free from Discrimination (ACLU Blog)

    LGBTQ-Inclusive Jury Service Non-Discrimination Legislation Advances to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker « Equality Illinois (Press Release)

    Courts consistently allow flagrant discrimination against LGBT jurors (Colorado Independent)

    Rep. Mondaire Jones Introduces Juror Non-Discrimination Act as Part of Landmark Equality Act (Press Release)

    LGBTQ-Inclusive Jury Service Non-Discrimination Legislation Advances to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (Equality Illinois)

    A team from Akerman pushed back against a judge’s decision not to allow attorneys to question jurors about potential biases against LGBT individuals (The National Law Journal)

    ABA House resolutions address juror discrimination, remedies for convictions based on bad science (ABA Journal)

    Jurors Can Be Asked About Anti-Gay Bias, Eleventh Circuit Rules (Daily Report)

    The LGBT Bar Joined an Amicus Brief in Berthiaume v. Smith et al. (Filed Brief)

    Batson In Transition: Prohibiting Peremptory Challenges On The Basis Of Gender Identity Or Expression (Columbia Law Review)

    HERO opponents try to ban gay jurors in trial (Project Q)

    Judge Slams Prosecutors for Dismissing Gay Juror (U-T San Diego)

    Federal Ruling on Jury Exclusion Carries Big Impact for Gay Rights (MSNBC)

    The Ninth Circuit, in SmithKline v. Abbott Labs, Bars Lawyers from Removing Gay/Lesbian Jurors (Verdict)

    A Jury of Your Peers – The Right to a Jury Trial Free from Discrimination (ACLU Blog)

    Courts consistently allow flagrant discrimination against LGBT jurors (Colorado Independent)

  • THE LGBTQ+ BAR

    1701 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: (202) 637-7661 | E-mail: info@lgbtqbar.org

    • About
    • About Us
    • Need a Lawyer?
    • Bar News
    • Leadership
    • Volunteer
    • Careers & Internships
    • Organization Financials
    • Contact Us
    • Programs
    • Advocacy
    • Allies
    • Awards
    • Bar Affiliates
    • Carceral Housing Resource
    • DEI Consulting Practice
    • Educational Series
    • Get Out the Vote
    • Job Board
    • Law Schools
    • Law Students
    • Member Practice Area Groups
    • Mental Health Resources
    • Pride Month 2023 - A Special Project
    • Prospective Judges
    • Racial Justice Resource Library
    • Events & Sponsorship
    • Annual
    • Upcoming Events
    • Out & Proud Corporate Counsel Receptions
    • Event Photos
    • Virtual Career Fair and Diversity Program for Small & Mid-Size Firms
    • Donate
    • Donate Now
    • Justice Council
    • Ways to Give
    • Lavender Law
    • Success Story Blog
    • Become a Sponsor
    • Membership
    • Become a Member
    • Renew Membership
    • Member Log In
    • Member Spotlight Blog
    Privacy Policy
    © Copyright 2022 The National LGBTQ+ Bar Association. All rights reserved.
  • This website stores data such as cookies to enable essential site functionality, as well as marketing, personalization, and analytics.
    By continuing to browse this website you indicate your consent to our Privacy Policy.
    To change your settings, .

    The National LGBTQ+ Bar Association and Foundation
    Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

    Strictly Necessary Cookies

    Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

    If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

    3rd Party Cookies

    This website uses Google Analytics, WebLeads, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn, and AdRoll to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

    Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

    Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!