Supreme Court Grants ‘Rare Win’ In Case Involving Jury Selection
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Mississippi death-row inmate Terry Pitchford, a move that places renewed scrutiny on jury selection standards and prosecutorial discretion under Batson v. Kentucky. Pitchford alleges that prosecutors in his 2004 murder trial improperly struck Black jurors at a disproportionate rate. The justices also granted Pitchford in forma pauperis status, allowing him to proceed without paying filing fees.
Legal experts note that while the Court routinely receives such petitions, few ultimately result in full review.
“Courts are ‘inundated’ with these requests, which often do not have merit. It is rare, so more than half of appeals for the Supreme Court are IFP appeals, and that’s because inmates have nothing to do, so they file these appeals,” said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, speaking to the Tacoma News Tribune.
“Some of them are handwritten. There are a lot of jailhouse lawyers. Looking at it from a purely numbers perspective, you don’t even have to get into the legal analysis, right? You can say X number of potential black jurors. All but one of them ended up getting struck by the prosecutor. I think it’s just an easier case to present,” she added.
Pitchford’s conviction has already traveled a complicated judicial path. One federal judge initially overturned the verdict, but that ruling was later reversed by an appeals court, reinstating the conviction, according to the outlet.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, Pitchford’s attorneys—Joseph Perkovich, Joseph Welling, and J. Scott Gilbert—argued that the trial court improperly accepted the prosecution’s use of juror strikes despite defense objections.
“On February 6, 2006, Mr. Pitchford’s jury was seated in the Grenada Circuit Court, with District Attorney Evans, exclusively, exercising the prosecution’s four strikes presently at issue. Judge Loper sustained each of these strikes over the defense’s Batson objections, thereby supplying the basis for this certiorari petition,” the attorneys wrote.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the spring of 2026, at which point the justices will decide whether Pitchford’s conviction stands. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has urged the Court to affirm the lower courts’ handling of the case.
“Petitioner first asks this Court to decide whether the state courts violated clearly established federal law by not considering ‘evidence’ and ‘circumstances’ on his Batson claim that he failed to argue or present to the trial court. Pet. i; see Pet. 6, 15-32. That issue does not further warrant review,” Fitch argued in a filing.
The case could have broad implications, potentially clarifying—or narrowing—when prosecutors’ juror strikes cross constitutional lines under Batson.
In a separate but related development, the Supreme Court on Friday declined to temporarily halt a lower-court ruling that revived a legal challenge to a Trump administration policy restricting public speaking by immigration judges.
In a brief, unsigned order, the justices rejected the administration’s request to block a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated a lawsuit brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges. However, the Court left the door open for future intervention if discovery proceeds before the justices decide whether to formally take up the case.
The dispute centers on a policy barring immigration judges “from speaking in their personal capacities about immigration and about the agency that employs them,” according to the judges’ association.
The group filed suit in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, arguing the policy violates the First Amendment. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema initially dismissed the case, ruling that the Civil Service Reform Act requires federal judges to pursue such claims through administrative review rather than district court litigation.
The 4th Circuit reversed that dismissal, citing actions taken by President Donald J. Trump that it said “call into question” whether the administrative review system remains independent. The appeals court pointed specifically to President Trump’s dismissal of the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel—two positions central to adjudicating federal employment disputes.
As a result, the appeals court suggested Congress may not have intended federal employees to be confined to an administrative process if that system is no longer independent from presidential authority.
Together, the cases place the Supreme Court squarely at the center of debates over criminal justice standards, executive authority, and constitutional boundaries—issues likely to reverberate well beyond the courtroom.