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
According to Petitioner, the case concerns whether the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied established Supreme Court precedent by rejecting a claim that the jury pool was not a fair cross‑section of the community.
African‑American representation in the venires was 6 % while the jury‑eligible population was 7.28 %.
Background and question before the Court
The petitioner argues that the issue is whether the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent in rejecting the claim that the jury was not drawn from a fair cross‑section of the community.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
The petitioner contends that the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established precedent by rejecting the claim that the jury pool was not a fair cross‑section of the community.
Respondent Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice STEVENS, justice Stevens noted a much higher percentage of African‑Americans in Grand Rapids than in the county as a whole.
Justice Scalia asked whether a juror must be a resident of the district to serve.
Mr. Restuccia answered "Yes" when Justice Scalia asked whether a juror must be a resident of the district.
Justice Kennedy asked whether a statistically significant underrepresentation constitutes systematic exclusion.
Chief Justice Roberts asked where the record shows Grand Rapids had a disproportionate need for jurors.
Mr. Restuccia responded that neither side established a disproportionate need.
Justice Sotomayor asked what is unreasonable about the petitioner’s argument.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens questioned how to handle a 2‑3 % disparity caused by minority excuses for non‑service.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy suggested that such a disparity might be a policy issue rather than constitutional.
Justice Alito asked whether any courts enforce juror attendance by issuing bench warrants and arresting non‑showing jurors.
Chief Justice Roberts again asked where the record shows the alleged need for jurors.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg noted that the change in the draw from the circuit pool reduced the comparative difference from 18 % to 15 %, questioning whether that is a significant change.
- [1] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 21
- [2] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 25
- [3] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 25
- [4] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 25
- [5] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 27
- [6] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 37
- [7] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 37
- [8] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 41
- [9] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 45
- [10] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 46
- [11] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 47
- [12] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 50
- [13] 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdf, p. 51
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Justice Kennedy’s and Justice Stevens’s questions illustrate how statistical underrepresentation may be viewed as systematic exclusion, raising constitutional concerns.
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.
- 33dc4537658a2ca1ae10-r1-469fd9c940b27a34.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.