In which case did the Court hold that peremptory challenges based solely on race violate the U.S. Constitution?

• A. Roe v. Wade
• B. Batson v. Kentucky
• C. Gideon v. Wainwright
• D. Mapp v. Ohio

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that excluding someone from a jury simply because of their race undermines equal protection under the law. In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court declared that peremptory challenges cannot be used to discriminately strike jurors on the basis of race. This ruling established that trial courts must guard against racial discrimination in jury selection, ensuring an impartial jury for the defendant.

The decision is significant because peremptory challenges allow attorneys to remove potential jurors without giving a reason, but Batson limits that tool when the motive is racial bias. To enforce this, courts follow a practical procedure: a party alleging discrimination must show a prima facie case of racial exclusion; the opposing side must then provide a race-neutral explanation for the challenges; and the judge must assess whether the explanation is a pretext for discrimination. This framework helps separate legitimate trial strategy from unconstitutional prejudice.

Other cases listed involve different constitutional issues—Roe v. Wade addresses abortion rights, Gideon v. Wainwright guarantees the right to counsel, and Mapp v. Ohio deals with the exclusionary rule. They do not establish or reinforce the rule against race-based peremptory challenges in jury selection.