Faith in the Courts: The Supreme Court's Stance on Religious Bias in Jury Selection

FAITH IN THE COURTS: THE SUPREME COURT’S STANCE ON RELIGIOUS BIAS IN JURY SELECTION
By Gavin Mitchell

The Supreme Court has recently declined to rule on a case which would have discussed the legality of excluding jurors based on their religious beliefs in the context of workplace discrimination. The case, involving a lesbian worker’s lawsuit against the Missouri Department of Corrections, raised significant questions about the impartiality of jury members and the constitutional promise of equal protection under the law [1]. The Court, in its denial to hear the case, has sparked debates over the boundaries of jury selection and the protection of fundamental rights.

Jean Finney, plaintiff of the case, alleged a pattern of workplace discrimination and retaliation after entering a relationship with former co-worker’s spouse, and sought justice through legal recourse. During the jury selection process, Finney’s legal team questioned prospective jurors about their religious beliefs, particularly regarding homosexuality, aiming to identify individuals with potential biases that could impact their impartiality in the case [2]. Three jurors were excluded due to their expressed belief that homosexuality is a sin, prompting debate over the boundaries of religious freedom and the principles of equality before the law.

The state of Missouri contested these exclusions, arguing they violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and constituted religious discrimination. The courts upheld the exclusions, however, they emphasized the need to ensure a fair trial and mitigate potential biases among jurors [3].

At this case’s heart lies a delicate balance between religious beliefs and the principles of fairness and equality. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the freedom of religion as a fundamental right under the First Amendment [4], it also guarantees equal protection under the law in the Fourteenth Amendment [5], safeguarding individuals from discrimination based on unchanging characteristics such as race or sex. As such, the exclusion of jurors based on specific religious beliefs, particularly when those beliefs intersect with the central issues of a case, presents a complex challenge for the judicial branch.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which has taken an expansive view of religious interests, adds another layer of complexity to the debate. Recent decisions have underscored the Court’s willingness to prioritize religious freedoms, even in cases involving potential conflicts with other constitutional principles. The question remains, however, whether these protections extend to jury selection on whether religious beliefs can serve as grounds for exclusion in certain circumstances.

While the Supreme Court has addressed several cases concerning jury selection practices, including challenges based on race and gender, it has not yet directly addressed the specific issue of excluding jurors based on religious beliefs in the context of discrimination cases. The Court’s reluctance to rule on cases involving religious matters stems from a balancing act between upholding constitutional principles and avoiding entanglement in sensitive religious issues. This cautious approach allows the Court to avoid wading into contentious religious debates while preserving the integrity of both the legal system and religious freedoms in the United States.

In navigating issues such as this, it is important to uphold the principles of fairness and impartiality in the legal system while respecting individuals’ religious freedom. While the exclusion of jurors based solely on their religious beliefs may raise concerns, it is crucial to weight these concerns against the need for a fair trial and the protection of individuals’ rights.

Ultimately, this case highlights the ongoing tension between religious freedom and the pursuit of justice. As society grapples with evolving attitudes towards issues such as sexual orientation, the legal system must adapt to ensure that al individuals receive fair and impartial treatment under the law. In doing so, we can uphold the fundamental values of equality and justice upon which our legal system is built.


1. John Kruzel, US Supreme Court Declines to Decide Legality of Excluding Jurors Based on Religion, Reuters (Feb., 20, 2024, 3:13 PM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-declines-decide-legality-excluding-jurors-based-religion-2024-02-20/ 
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid. 
4. U.S. CONST. amend. I
5. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV