ssss

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion to the court.
In 2012 the company SmithKline Beechum (GSK) filled a lawsuit against the company Abbott Laboratories. Both companies were involved in the sale of HIV medications and the dispute arose over GSK claims that Abbott violated anti-trust laws and breached contracts between the two companies. The suit was brought to the District Court, where Abbot won the suit regarding anti-trust claims, but lost on claims over contract violations. Abbott appealed the decision, and GSK cross-appealed on the grounds that during Voir dire, Abbott used its first peremptory strike to dismiss a prospective gay juror. The juror that was struck referenced a male partner several times and acknowledged that although he did not take the disputed drug, he had taken a drug produced by one of the companies. He also stated that he had several friends who used the HIV medication. Abbott’s legal adversaries concluded that the company’s strike was over concern that the juror would be inherently prejudice against Abbott. Abbott initially denied that their strike was based on sexual orientation, but in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Abbott argued that sexual orientation was an acceptable reasoning for a preemptory strike.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals repealed the decision of the District Court and motioned for a new trial.
Held: (1) Classifications based on sexual orientation should be applied to heightened scrutiny in regard to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment (U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Section 1.). (2) Since this applied heightened scrutiny, the Batson challenge should have been constitutionally allowed and applied during the peremptory strike against Juror B, therefore the strike would ...

... middle of paper ...

...ave been peremptorily struck, they would have affirmed the District Courts decision. There are no Supreme Court precedents that have shown rational scrutiny prevention of peremptory jury strikes. However, the court opinion in J.E.B. v. Alabama stated,
[P]arties may . . . exercise their peremptory challenges to remove from the venire any group or class of individuals normally subject to “rational basis” review. (J.E.B. v. Alabama. S.C. (1994))

Justice Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit acknowledged this in Abbott, which stated, “If sexual orientation is subject to rational basis review, Abbott’s strike does not require reversal”. Therefore, the District court was just in their decision to strike the juror. Peremptory strikes are essential in @@@

This is a clear-cut case of the Ninth Circuit Court attempting to disregard precedent and requires no further justification.