Read the full stored bill text
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~ G1/2
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 1 (ens\kr)
To: Judiciary, Division A
MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2026
By: Senator(s) Simmons (12th)
SENATE BILL NO. 2363
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM USING A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE 1
TO REMOVE A PROSPECTIVE JUROR ON THE BASIS OF THE PROSPECTIVE 2
JUROR'S RACE, ETHNICITY, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY, SEXUAL 3
ORIENTATION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, OR THE 4
PERCEIVED MEMBERSHIP OF THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN ANY OF THOSE 5
GROUPS; TO AUTHORIZE A PARTY, OR THE TRIAL COURT ON ITS OWN 6
MOTION, TO OBJECT TO THE USE OF A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE BASED ON 7
THESE CRITERIA; TO REQUIRE THE PARTY EXERCISING THE CHALLENGE, 8
UPON OBJECTION, TO STATE THE REASONS THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE HAS 9
BEEN EXERCISED; TO REQUIRE THE COURT TO EVALUATE THE REASONS GIVEN 10
AND, IF THE COURT GRANTS THE OBJECTION, AUTHORIZE THE COURT TO 11
TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, STARTING A 12
NEW JURY SELECTION, DECLARING A MISTRIAL AT THE REQUEST OF THE 13
OBJECTING PARTY, SEATING THE CHALLENGED JUROR, OR PROVIDING 14
ANOTHER REMEDY AS THE COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE; TO PROVIDE FOR A DE 15
NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT REVIEWING THE DENIAL 16
OF AN OBJECTION; TO PROVIDE THAT THE ACT APPLIES TO CRIMINAL JURY 17
TRIALS IN WHICH JURY SELECTION BEGINS ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2027; 18
TO PROVIDE THAT THE ACT APPLIES TO CIVIL JURY TRIALS IN WHICH JURY 19
SELECTION BEGINS ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2029; AND FOR RELATED 20
PURPOSES. 21
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI: 22
SECTION 1. (1) The Legislature finds: 23
(a) That peremptory challenges are frequently used in 24
criminal cases to exclude potential jurors from serving based on 25
their race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual 26
orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or 27
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 2 (ens\kr)
perceived membership in any of those groups, and that exclusion 28
from jury service has disproportionately harmed African Americans, 29
Latinos, and other people of color; 30
(b) That the existing procedure for determining whether 31
a peremptory challenge was exercised on the basis of a legally 32
impermissible reason has failed to eliminate that discrimination; 33
and 34
(c) That requiring proof of intentional bias renders 35
the procedure ineffective and that many of the reasons routinely 36
advanced to justify the exclusion of jurors from protected groups 37
are, in fact, associated with stereotypes about those groups or 38
otherwise based on unlawful discrimination. 39
(2) The intent of the Legislature is: 40
(a) To put into place an effective procedure for 41
eliminating the unfair exclusion of potential jurors based on 42
race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, 43
national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership 44
in any of those groups, through the exercise of peremptory 45
challenges; 46
(b) That this act be broadly construed to further the 47
purpose of eliminating the use of group stereotypes and 48
discrimination, whether based on conscious or unconscious bias, in 49
the exercise of peremptory challenges; and 50
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 3 (ens\kr)
(c) That this act shall not, in purpose or effect, 51
lower the standard for judging challenges for cause or expand use 52
of challenges for cause. 53
(3) Therefore, this act designates several justifications as 54
presumptively invalid and provides a remedy for both conscious and 55
unconscious bias in the use of peremptory challenges. 56
SECTION 2. (1) A party shall not use a peremptory challenge 57
to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective 58
juror's race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual 59
orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or the 60
perceived membership of the prospective juror in any of those 61
groups. 62
(2) A party, or the trial court on its own motion, may 63
object to the improper use of a peremptory challenge under 64
subsection (1) of this section. After the objection is made, any 65
further discussion shall be conducted outside the presence of the 66
panel. The objection shall be made before the jury is impaneled, 67
unless information becomes known that could not have reasonably 68
been known before the jury was impaneled. 69
(3) Upon objection to the exercise of a peremptory challenge 70
pursuant to this section, the party exercising the peremptory 71
challenge shall state the reasons the peremptory challenge has 72
been exercised. 73
(4) (a) The court shall evaluate the reasons given to 74
justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the 75
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 4 (ens\kr)
circumstances. The court shall consider only the reasons actually 76
given and shall not speculate on, or assume the existence of, 77
other possible justifications for the use of the peremptory 78
challenge. If the court determines there is a substantial 79
likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view race, 80
ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national 81
origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any 82
of those groups, as a factor in the use of the peremptory 83
challenge, then the objection shall be sustained. The court need 84
not find purposeful discrimination to sustain the objection. The 85
court shall explain the reasons for its ruling on the record. A 86
motion brought under this section shall also be deemed a 87
sufficient presentation of claims asserting the discriminatory 88
exclusion of jurors in violation of the United States and 89
Mississippi Constitutions; 90
(b) (i) For purposes of this section, an objectively 91
reasonable person is aware that unconscious bias, in addition to 92
purposeful discrimination, has resulted in the unfair exclusion of 93
potential jurors in the State of Mississippi; 94
(ii) For purposes of this section, a "substantial 95
likelihood" means more than a mere possibility but less than a 96
standard of more likely than not; and 97
(iii) For purposes of this act, "unconscious bias" 98
includes implicit and institutional biases; and 99
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 5 (ens\kr)
(c) In making its determination, the circumstances the 100
court may consider include, but are not limited to, any of the 101
following: 102
(i) Whether any of the following circumstances 103
exist: 104
1. The objecting party is a member of the 105
same perceived cognizable group as the challenged juror; 106
2. The alleged victim is not a member of that 107
perceived cognizable group; and 108
3. Witnesses or the parties are not members 109
of that perceived cognizable group; 110
(ii) Whether race, ethnicity, gender, gender 111
identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious 112
affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, bear 113
on the facts of the case to be tried; 114
(iii) The number and types of questions posed to 115
the prospective juror, including, but not limited to, any the 116
following: 117
1. Consideration of whether the party 118
exercising the peremptory challenge failed to question the 119
prospective juror about the concerns later stated by the party as 120
the reason for the peremptory challenge pursuant to subsection (3) 121
of this section; 122
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 6 (ens\kr)
2. Whether the party exercising the 123
peremptory challenge engaged in cursory questioning of the 124
challenged potential juror; and 125
3. Whether the party exercising the 126
peremptory challenge asked different questions of the potential 127
juror against whom the peremptory challenge was used in contrast 128
to questions asked of other jurors from different perceived 129
cognizable groups about the same topic or whether the party 130
phrased those questions differently; 131
(iv) Whether other prospective jurors, who are not 132
members of the same cognizable group as the challenged prospective 133
juror, provided similar, but not necessarily identical, answers 134
but were not the subject of a peremptory challenge by that party; 135
(v) Whether a reason might be disproportionately 136
associated with a race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual 137
orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or 138
perceived membership in any of those groups; 139
(vi) Whether the reason given by the party 140
exercising the peremptory challenge was contrary to or unsupported 141
by the record; and 142
(vii) Whether the counsel or counsel's office 143
exercising the challenge has used peremptory challenges 144
disproportionately against a given race, ethnicity, gender, gender 145
identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious 146
affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, in 147
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 7 (ens\kr)
the present case or in past cases, including whether the counsel 148
or counsel's office who made the challenge has a history of prior 149
violations under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, People v. 150
Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, Section 231.5, or this section. 151
(5) A peremptory challenge for any of the following reasons 152
is presumed to be invalid unless the party exercising the 153
peremptory challenge can show by clear and convincing evidence 154
that an objectively reasonable person would view the rationale as 155
unrelated to a prospective juror's race, ethnicity, gender, gender 156
identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious 157
affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, and 158
that the reasons articulated bear on the prospective juror's 159
ability to be fair and impartial in the case: 160
(a) Expressing a distrust of or having a negative 161
experience with law enforcement or the criminal legal system; 162
(b) Expressing a belief that law enforcement officers 163
engage in racial profiling or that criminal laws have been 164
enforced in a discriminatory manner; 165
(c) Having a close relationship with people who have 166
been stopped, arrested or convicted of a crime; 167
(d) A prospective juror's neighborhood; 168
(e) Having a child outside of marriage; 169
(f) Receiving state benefits; 170
(g) Not being a native English speaker; 171
(h) The ability to speak another language; 172
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 8 (ens\kr)
(i) Dress, attire or personal appearance; 173
(j) Employment in a field that is disproportionately 174
occupied by members listed in subsection (1) of this section or 175
that serves a population disproportionately comprised of members 176
of a group or groups listed in subsection (1) of this section; 177
(k) Lack of employment or underemployment of the 178
prospective juror or prospective juror's family member; 179
(l) A prospective juror's apparent friendliness with 180
another prospective juror of the same group as listed in 181
subsection (1) of this section; or 182
(m) Any justification that is similarly applicable to a 183
questioned prospective juror or jurors, who are not members of the 184
same cognizable group as the challenged prospective juror, but 185
were not the subject of a peremptory challenge by that party. The 186
unchallenged prospective juror or jurors need not share any other 187
characteristics with the challenged prospective juror for 188
peremptory challenge relying on this justification to be 189
considered presumptively invalid. 190
(6) For purposes of subsection (5) of this section, the term 191
"clear and convincing" refers to the degree of certainty the 192
factfinder must have in determining whether the reasons given for 193
the exercise of a peremptory challenge are unrelated to the 194
prospective juror's cognizable group membership, bearing in mind 195
conscious and unconscious bias. To determine that a presumption 196
of invalidity has been overcome, the factfinder shall determine 197
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 9 (ens\kr)
that it is highly probable that the reasons given for the exercise 198
of a peremptory challenge are unrelated to conscious or 199
unconscious bias and are instead specific to the juror and bear on 200
that juror's ability to be fair and impartial in the case. 201
(7) (a) The following reasons for peremptory challenges 202
have historically been associated with improper discrimination in 203
jury selection: 204
(i) The prospective juror was inattentive, or 205
staring or failing to make eye contact; 206
(ii) The prospective juror exhibited either a lack 207
of rapport or problematic attitude, body language or demeanor; and 208
(iii) The prospective juror provided unintelligent 209
or confused answers. 210
(b) The reasons set forth in this paragraph (a) of this 211
subsection are presumptively invalid unless the trial court is 212
able to confirm that the asserted behavior occurred, based on the 213
court's own observations or the observations of counsel for the 214
objecting party. Even with that confirmation, the counsel 215
offering the reason shall explain why the asserted demeanor, 216
behavior or manner in which the prospective juror answered 217
questions matters to the case to be tried. 218
(8) Upon a court granting an objection to the improper 219
exercise of a peremptory challenge, the court shall do one or more 220
of the following: 221
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 10 (ens\kr)
(a) Quash the jury venire and start jury selection 222
anew. This remedy shall be provided if requested by the objecting 223
party; 224
(b) If the motion is granted after the jury has been 225
impaneled, declare a mistrial and select a new jury if requested 226
by the defendant; 227
(c) Seat the challenged juror; 228
(d) Provide the objecting party additional challenges; 229
and 230
(e) Provide another remedy as the court deems 231
appropriate; 232
(9) (a) This section applies in all criminal jury trials in 233
which jury selection begins on or after January 1, 2027. 234
(b) This section applies in all civil jury trials in 235
which jury selection begins on or after January 1, 2029. 236
(10) The denial of an objection made under this section 237
shall be reviewed by the appellate court de novo, with the trial 238
court's express factual findings reviewed for substantial 239
evidence. The appellate court shall not impute to the trial court 240
any findings, including findings of a prospective juror's 241
demeanor, that the trial court did not expressly state on the 242
record. The reviewing court shall consider only reasons actually 243
given under subsection (3) of this section and shall not speculate 244
as to or consider reasons that were not given to explain either 245
the party's use of the peremptory challenge or the party's failure 246
S. B. No. 2363 *SS26/R644* ~ OFFICIAL ~
26/SS26/R644
PAGE 11 (ens\kr)
ST: Juries; prohibit peremptory challenges
based on certain factors.
to challenge similarly situated jurors who are not members of the 247
same cognizable group as the challenged juror, regardless of 248
whether the moving party made a comparative analysis argument in 249
the trial court. Should the appellate court determine that the 250
objection was erroneously denied, that error shall be deemed 251
prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded 252
for a new trial. 253
(11) The provisions of this section are severable. If any 254
provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that 255
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that 256
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. 257
SECTION 3. This act shall take effect and be in force from 258
and after July 1, 2026. 259