The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Mississippi unreasonably applied Batson when it found a death row inmate waived his right to rebut race-neutral jury-strike justifications.
A fractured Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on May 28 that Mississippi courts unreasonably applied federal constitutional law when they found a death row inmate had waived his right to rebut the prosecution's race-neutral explanations for striking four Black prospective jurors [1]. The decision in *Pitchford v. Cain* reverses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and orders a new review of Terry Pitchford's Batson claim [2].
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's three liberal justices. The core finding is narrow but consequential: the trial court skipped the third step of the *Batson v. Kentucky* framework entirely, never giving defense counsel an opportunity to argue that the prosecution's stated reasons were pretextual [1]. Because the court denied counsel that chance, the Mississippi Supreme Court could not later treat the defense's silence as a waiver [3]. The ruling holds that the state court's contrary conclusion was an "unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [2].
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. The dissenters argued that the majority underweighted AEDPA's strict deference standard, which requires federal courts to defer to state court adjudications unless they reflect an objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, not merely an incorrect one [1]. The 5-4 split, crossing traditional ideological lines, signals ongoing tension over how tightly AEDPA constrains federal habeas review of state criminal judgments [3].
The decision carries broad implications for capital defendants who raised *Batson* claims at trial and are now litigating in federal habeas proceedings. Death penalty cases frequently involve jury-selection disputes, and many arise from states, including Mississippi, with documented histories of racially skewed strikes [1]. By clarifying that the third *Batson* step is mandatory and not subject to constructive waiver when a trial court forecloses it, the ruling opens the door for similarly situated petitioners to argue their claims were never properly adjudicated [2].
The case now returns to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the majority opinion [3]. How the Fifth Circuit applies the ruling on remand will determine whether Pitchford receives a new sentencing proceeding or a different form of relief, and that disposition will itself be watched closely by capital defense practitioners nationwide [1].