This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
Justice Scalia questioned whether a trial judge may consider anything beyond the racial‑strike evidence and warned that such speculation might be extreme.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg noted that in the Title VII context, the initial threshold does not require showing “more likely than not”; only four statutory showings are needed.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner (Stephen B. Bedrick), according to Petitioner (Stephen B. Bedrick), the correct prima facie standard under Batson is whether there is sufficient evidence to permit a judge to draw a reasonable inference of discrimination.
According to Mr. Bedrick, under Title VII, the facts must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (“more likely than not”) and the McDonnell Douglas formula applies.
According to Mr. Bedrick, the trial judge should not speculate beyond the racial‑strike evidence; doing so would be extreme and unusual.
According to Mr. Schalit, if a party refuses to produce requested discovery, the court may draw an adverse inference, apply issue preclusion, or impose a termination sanction.
Respondent
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 10:49 a.m.
Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the case was submitted.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 0dfc6572eec6f2bd604a-r1-8d4cb97d6b47ec7b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.