In the 1993 case J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that striking potential jurors solely based on their gender was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under law. The case involved a paternity suit where all male members were struck from jury selection by peremptory challenges made by state prosecutors, resulting in an all-female jury panel deciding on child support payments for an illegitimate child against a man named J.E.B.. In a 6-3 decision led by Justice Harry Blackmun, it was held that such discrimination perpetuated stereotypes and prejudices about men and women's roles and abilities, thus undermining public respect for our judicial system.

In the dissenting opinion for J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B., Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that peremptory challenges have a long history in American and English law and serve important functions in ensuring fair trials. They contended that the majority's decision to prohibit gender-based peremptory challenges was an unwarranted expansion of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters believed this ruling would lead to further restrictions on peremptory challenges based on other group characteristics such as age or profession, which could undermine their utility entirely. Furthermore, they expressed concern about practical enforcement difficulties given how hard it can be to determine whether a challenge is genuinely gender-neutral or not.