In the case of Thaddeus Donald Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 1990, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that private litigants in civil trials cannot use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on their race. The plaintiff, Thaddeus Edmonson, an African-American construction worker was injured while working on a federal project and sued his employer, Leesville Concrete Company for negligence. During jury selection process at trial court level, attorneys for Leesville used peremptory strikes to remove black individuals from the jury pool which led to an all-white jury who found in favor of Leesville. On appeal by Edmonson claiming racial discrimination under Batson v Kentucky (1986), it was argued whether Batson's prohibition against race-based juror exclusion applied only to state actors or also extended into civil litigation between private parties. The Supreme Court held that even though this case involved two private entities rather than government action directly discriminating against citizens due its public function nature; hence extending Batson’s principles prohibiting racially discriminatory practices during voir dire in criminal cases now applies equally well within civil cases too.

In the dissenting opinion for Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Justice Scalia argued that private litigants in a civil trial should not be subject to the same standards as government prosecutors when it comes to peremptory challenges, which allow attorneys to reject potential jurors without stating a reason. He contended that these challenges are part of a long-standing tradition in common law and do not constitute state action just because they occur within a courtroom setting. Furthermore, he believed that extending equal protection principles from criminal trials (where racial discrimination is prohibited) into civil cases would undermine this important legal tool and potentially infrify on parties' rights to fair trials by forcing them to provide reasons for their jury selection decisions.