Supreme Court of the United States, 1986

Michigan v. Booker

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 30, 1986 · Burger

478 U.S. 1001; 106 S. Ct. 3289 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision. The 21 that cite it most often are listed here.

James H. Bell, Jr. v. Dennis Baker (6th Cir. 1992)
Ex Parte State (Ala. 1988)
Frank Teague v. Michael Lane, Director, Department of Corrections, and Michael O'leary, Warden (7th Cir. 1987)
State v. Hobbs (N.C. 2020)
State v. Hobbs (N.C. 2020)
United States v. Jose Rodriquez-Cardenas, Amado Jesus Perez (11th Cir. 1989)
Buckley Andre Bruner v. E.P. Perini, Supt. (6th Cir. 1989)
United States v. Oscar Clemons (3d Cir. 1988)
United States v. Sandy Townsley, United States of America v. Ernest (Pat) Gandy, United States of America v. Sorkis Webbe, Jr. (8th Cir. 1988)
Fields v. People (Colo. 1987)
United States Ex Rel. Yates v. Hardiman (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1987)
People v. Kern (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Reginald Jones v. J.O. Davis, Warden (11th Cir. 1988)
People v. Muriale (New York Supreme Court 1988)
People v. Gary M. (New York Supreme Court 1988)
Michael Lindsey v. Fred Smith, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, J.D. White, Warden Holman Unit (11th Cir. 1987)
Chew v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987)
State v. Smith (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)
Roman v. Abrams (2d Cir. 1987)
Larry Booker v. John Jabe, Warden, Kinross Correctional Facility (6th Cir. 1986)
United States Ex Rel. Miller v. O'LEARY (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certio- • rari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Allen v. Hardy, ante, p. 255, and Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986).

Dissenting Opinion

Chief Justice Burger,

dissenting.

I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the Sixth Amendment prohibits parties in a criminal case from using peremptory challenges to exclude black persons from the petit jury. In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, 84-85, n. 4 (1986), petitioner raised precisely this Sixth Amendment argument. Justice Rehnquist and I rejected this posi*1002tion, observing that “because the case-specific use of peremptory challenges by the State does not deny blacks the right to serve as jurors in cases involving nonblack defendants, it harms neither the excluded jurors nor the remainder of the community.” Id., at 138. The Court in Batson did not challenge this conclusion and indeed, it refused to even discuss the Sixth Amendment issue. Id., at 84-85, n. 4. Instead, the Court took the highly irregular step of considering an argument not raised by the petitioner, id., at 112 (Burger, C. J., dissenting), and concluded that the Equal Protection Clause was violated by the case-specific use of peremptory challenges on the basis of race.

It is apparent that the Sixth Amendment argument raised here is without merit. I would therefore simply reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.