Peremptory strikes, and criticism of the permissive constitutional framework regulating them, have dominated the scholarship on race and the jury for the past several decades. But we have overlooked another important way in which the American jury reflects and reproduces racial hierarchies: massive racial disparities also pervade the use of challenges for cause. This Article examines challenges for cause and race in nearly 400 trials and, based on original archival research, presents a revisionist account of the Supreme Court’s three most recent Batson cases. It establishes that challenges for cause, no less than peremptory strikes, are an important—and unrecognized—vehicle of racial exclusion in criminal adjudication. Challenges for cause are racially skewed, in part, because the Supreme Court has insulated the challenge-for-cause process from meaningful review. Scholars frequently write that jury selection was “constitutionalized” in the 1970s and 1980s, but this doctrinal account is incomplete. In the interstices of the Court’s fair-cross-section, equal protection, and due process jurisprudence, there is a “missing” law of challenges for cause. By overlooking challenges for cause, scholars have failed to notice the important ways in which jury selection remains free from constitutional regulation. Challenges for cause as they exist today—effectively standardless, insulated from meaningful review, and racially skewed—do more harm than good. They hinder, more than help, the jury in its central roles: (1) protecting the individual against governmental overreach; (2) allowing the community a democratic voice in articulating public values; (3) finding facts; (4) bolstering the perceived legitimacy and fairness of criminal verdicts; and (5) educating jurors as citizens. We need to rethink who is qualified to serve as a juror and how we select them.

中文翻译：

---

For Cause: 重新思考种族排斥和美国陪审团

在过去的几十年里，强制性罢工以及对规范罢工的宽松宪法框架的批评一直主导着种族和陪审团的学术研究。但我们忽略了美国陪审团反映和再现种族等级制度的另一个重要方式：巨大的种族差异也普遍存在于以挑战为目的的使用中。本文审查了近 400 项审判中的原因和种族挑战，并基于原始档案研究，对最高法院最近的三起 Batson 案件进行了修正。它确立了对事业的挑战，不亚于强制性罢工，是刑事裁决中种族排斥的重要且未被承认的工具。对事业的挑战在某种程度上是种族偏向的，因为最高法院已经将原因挑战程序与有意义的审查隔离开来。学者们经常写道，陪审团的选择在 1970 年代和 1980 年代被“宪法化”，但这种学说是不完整的。在法院的公平横截面、平等保护和正当程序判例的空隙中，有一条“缺失”的理由质疑法。由于忽视了事业上的挑战，学者们未能注意到陪审团选择不受宪法规定约束的重要方式。当今存在的对事业的挑战——实际上是没有标准的，不受有意义的审查的影响，以及种族偏见——弊大于利。它们阻碍，而不是帮助，陪审团发挥其核心作用：（1）保护个人免受政府的过度干预；(2) 允许社区在表达公共价值观时发出民主的声音；（三）查明事实；（四）增强刑事判决的合法性和公正性；（五）教育陪审员成为公民。我们需要重新考虑谁有资格担任陪审员以及我们如何选择他们。