All states did not require a unanimous jury verdict to convict until a 2020 Supreme Court case

A 1986 Supreme Court ruling prohibited race-based jury strikes, but racial imbalance in jury selection persists

Batson v. Kentucky banned prosecutors from excluding jurors on the basis of race, but critics say it backfired. Prosecutors often use race-neutral pretexts to remove potential jurors that judges rarely reject, and some courts have never found a violation of the ruling.

Explore jury nullification, the little-known power that lets jurors ignore the law and acquit anyway

When jurors disagree with a law, they can simply vote to acquit regardless of the evidence; however, this practice is rare, and the legal system actively discourages it. This podcast traces its history from a Quaker prayer meeting in London to the LA riots.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases

Ratified in 1791, this amendment applies to cases where more than $20 is at stake—an amount that has never been adjusted for inflation.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and legal counsel

The amendment guarantees robust protections for those accused of crimes. However, states weren't required to provide attorneys for defendants who couldn't afford one until the Supreme Court's 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright ruling—172 years after ratification.

The Supreme Court extended the ban on discriminatory jury strikes to include gender in 1994

In J.E.B. v. Alabama, the court ruled 6-3 that using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on sex violates the Equal Protection Clause, building on its 1986 Batson decision banning race-based strikes.

The vast majority of federal criminal cases never reach a jury.

In fiscal year 2022, nearly 90% of federal defendants pleaded guilty, and another 8% had their cases dismissed. This means just 2% went to trial at all, making a trial by jury a rare outcome in the modern federal court system.

A Mississippi man was tried six times for the same crime, each time before an all-white or nearly all-white jury

This podcast investigates how prosecutor Doug Evans systematically struck Black jurors across decades of cases. The team built a database of every jury strike Evans made over 20 years, uncovering a racial pattern that was later cited by the Supreme Court when it overturned Curtis Flowers' conviction in 2019.

Grand juries were once considered a formality, but that may no longer be the case

New York's former chief judge famously said a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," showing how rarely a grand jury refused. However, recent cases in which prosecutors failed to secure an indictment during the second Trump administration are challenging that assumption.

In 41 states, older Americans can opt out of jury duty, but not in federal court

As of 2024, 41 states offer age-based exemptions from state jury duty, with opt-out ages ranging from 65 in Mississippi and South Carolina to 80 in five states. None of these exemptions applies to federal court.

Black Americans were systematically excluded from juries for much of US history

Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even explicit laws kept Black Americans off juries until well into the 20th century. The Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 mandated that federal juries reflect a fair cross-section of the community, though racial disparities in jury selection persist.

Explore state-level data on juries.

Grand juries investigate crimes and decide whether the government has enough evidence to charge someone

Unlike trial juries, which determine guilt, grand juries decide whether there is probable cause to bring charges at all. If they find enough evidence, they issue a formal indictment. Federal grand juries are enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

In the SEC vs. Jarkesy ruling of 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to seek civil penalties for securities fraud in-house, which significantly scaled back the agency's enforcement capabilities.

Federal juries are selected from voter rolls and driver's license lists

Courts randomly draw prospective jurors from these sources, then mail qualification questionnaires. Those who qualify may be summoned for voir dire, where judges and attorneys question candidates before seating a final jury.

The roots of American law and the jury system trace back to medieval England

King Henry II established a jury of 12 local knights to settle land disputes in the 12th century, and his judges developed national laws common to everyone. American courts inherited this "common law" tradition directly from the English system.

Juror pay varies widely by state, and most employers are not required to cover it.

State court juror pay ranges from nothing in Illinois and South Carolina to $50 per day in six states, with a national average of around $22 per day. Only eight states and DC require employers to provide paid time off during jury service.

Go inside a real jury room as 12 Americans deliberate a criminal case.

This PBS "Frontline" documentary from 1986 was the first to film actual jury deliberations on American television, capturing a Wisconsin criminal trial jury wrestling with the evidence and the case's consequences.

Read the criteria for federal jury selection and the exemptions and excuses that can get you out of it.

Federal jurors must be US citizens, at least 18 years old, proficient in English, and free of felony convictions. Active-duty military, full-time police and firefighters, and certain public officials are fully exempt from service.

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

Amending the Constitution requires broad support

The framers created a demanding amendment process. Proposed changes require two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures, making sure that constitutional amendments reflect a broad national consensus rather than temporary political majorities.

The Fifth Amendment covers a wide range of legal protections for those accused of a crime

While it is widely known for the right against self-incrimination, the Fifth Amendment also protects against being charged for the same crime twice, requires grand jury indictments for serious crimes, and mandates compensation when the government takes private property for public use.

John Marshall presided over Aaron Burr's 1807 treason trial

During the 1807 trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr, Marshall required proof of an overt act witnessed by two people to sustain a treason charge. His rulings limited executive influence and reinforced constitutional standards for conviction under Article III.

True crime content can influence the justice system

The 2014 podcast "Serial" inspired national doubt about the outcome and quality of a 1999 Baltimore murder case, resulting in overturned convictions (that were then reinstated). The series "In the Dark," whose second season pored over the murder trials of a Black Mississippi man, revealed crucial testimony was recanted, provided evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection, and was cited in case filings.

The 1948 Supreme Court ruling was overturned in 2020

In 2020, US District Court Judge Analisa Torres overturned the 1948 Supreme Court ruling that broke up the studio system—effectively allowing the film industry to become vertically integrated once again—with companies like Amazon and Disney taking advantage of the relaxed regulations.

John Marshall presided over more than 1,100 Supreme Court decisions

During his 34-year tenure, the Marshall court issued 1,129 decisions, including 1,042 unanimous rulings. Marshall authored more than 500 majority opinions—over half of the court's total output during his tenure as chief justice.

State supreme court justices almost never serve for life

Unlike US Supreme Court justices, 99% of state supreme court justices face term limits, reselection, or mandatory retirement ages. Since 1970, they've averaged 13 years on the bench—half the tenure of their federal counterparts.

Trial by jury was an important source of colonial resistance to British rule

Colonial juries refused to convict Americans who violated British trade laws, and Britain's response, stripping away jury rights, became a central grievance of the Revolution. The Declaration of Independence explicitly cited the denial of the right to trial by jury as a charge against King George III.

A 2013 Supreme Court case weakened federal oversight of redistricting

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula, reducing federal oversight of voting laws—including redistricting—and allowing changes to take effect without prior approval.

The Supreme Court blocked states from setting term limits for Congress

In US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that tried to impose term limits on their congressional delegations. The court ruled such restrictions unconstitutional unless added through a federal amendment.

An 1873 Supreme Court case about slaughterhouses weakened parts of the 14th Amendment

In 1873, the Supreme Court's Slaughterhouse Cases ruled that the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause protected only federal—not state—citizenship rights, greatly limiting the amendment's power to safeguard enslaved people from state discrimination.

The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

Mississippi didn't officially ratify the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery until 2013, nearly 150 years after it passed.

Thousands of state voting changes have been federally blocked since the Voting Rights Act

Since 1965, federal oversight has blocked thousands of state-level voting changes—including redistricting plans—by requiring approval for measures that could affect minority representation, a process scaled back by the Supreme Court in 2013.

The 13th Amendment permanently abolished slavery in the United States

Ratified in December 1865, the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery nationwide except as punishment for a crime. Southern states were required to ratify it under President Andrew Johnson's initial Reconstruction plan before regaining representation, though Congress later imposed stricter conditions.

The 13th Amendment's criminal exception enabled new forms of forced labor

Southern states exploited the amendment's clause allowing slavery "as punishment for crime" to arrest thousands of Black Americans on minor charges, leasing them to private employers through convict labor systems that persisted for decades.

Gibbons v. Ogden expanded federal power over interstate commerce

In 1824, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a New York steamboat monopoly, ruling that navigation between states constitutes interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Congress has authority over such commerce and that conflicting state laws are void under the supremacy clause.

3 states did not officially ratify the Bill of Rights until 1939

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia originally rejected or tabled the amendments in 1791. With Virginia's ratification already clearing the three-fourths threshold of adoption, there was no legal pressure to revisit it—until all three states acted symbolically on the 150th anniversary of Congressional approval of the amendments.

Washington was elected unanimously twice to the presidency

George Washington was unanimously elected in 1789 and 1792, with every presidential elector casting one of their two votes for him (at the time, each elector cast two votes). He accepted the office reluctantly, seeing it as a duty rather than an ambition.

A 1954 Supreme Court ruling helped quiz shows avoid regulation

When the Federal Communications Committee attempted to rein in giveaway shows, the Supreme Court ruled that quiz shows were not a form of gambling because contestants did not have to risk anything to participate. Some believe that the ruling prevented proper oversight of the industry as it became more popular.

In 2025, the 'two strikes and you're out' rule took effect to protect consumers from repeated attempts to withdraw money

After years of being delayed by litigation, a 2024 US Supreme Court ruling upheld a law that prevents lenders from attempting to take payments from accounts with insufficient funds more than twice without reauthorization. This tactic is commonly used by payday loan companies, which technically require repayment on the day borrowers receive their paychecks.

A TV show put one unsuspecting man on a fake jury surrounded entirely by actors for three weeks.

In the Amazon comedy "Jury Duty," Ronald Gladden believed he was participating in a documentary about the judicial process, unaware that everyone involved with the entire trial was an actor. In this podcast, Gladden and director Jake Szymanski reflect on the experience.

A 2020 Supreme Court ruling affirmed that nearly half of Oklahoma remains tribal land

In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Muscogee Nation's reservation was never legally dissolved, thereby stripping Oklahoma of authority to prosecute tribal members for crimes committed on that land. Season One of the "This Land" podcast further explores how reservation court systems operate.

Reynolds v. United States (1878) established that religious belief is not a defense for a crime

In the first major Supreme Court case on the free exercise clause, the court ruled that the government cannot regulate religious belief, but it can regulate religious practice if it violates the law. The case arose from a Mormon man convicted of polygamy who argued his faith required it.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and required states to provide equal legal protection to all.

Read the majority opinion that established judicial review

In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a written constitution is "paramount law" and that courts must refuse to enforce statutes that conflict with it. He declared that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

There is no clear national standard of laws for autonomous vehicle

Some US states allow self-driving vehicles to operate without a human driver present, while others require a licensed driver to be behind the wheel. As of January 2023, a total of 21 states have legalized autonomous vehicles in public, with six focused solely on semi-trucks.

The nullification crisis tested whether states could defy federal law

In the 1830s, South Carolina declared federal tariffs void within its borders. President Andrew Jackson threatened military force, Congress passed a compromise tariff, and the episode ended with federal authority prevailing over state nullification.

Most Americans support age limits for justices, elected officials

As members of Congress and Supreme Court justices continue to serve at an average age far older than in the past, polls show a majority of Americans favor setting an age limit for these roles. Roughly 79% support caps for federal elected officials, and 74% favor such limits for Supreme Court justices. A constitutional amendment would be required.