DES MOINES — Iowa’s highest court is considering a significant change to the way attorneys remove prospective jurors from criminal and civil trials, including new restrictions intended to prevent race or ethnicity — even unconscious bias — from influencing who ultimately sits on a jury.
Chief Justice Susan Christensen signed an order August 26 opening a two-month public comment period on proposed amendments to Iowa’s Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The proposal comes from the Iowa Supreme Court’s Fairness in Jury Selection Task Force, which spent months studying how attorneys use strikes during jury selection.
At issue are “peremptory strikes,” which generally allow attorneys to remove prospective jurors without having to establish the kind of specific legal reason required for a challenge for cause.
Those strikes, however, cannot lawfully be used to discriminate on the basis of race.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky established constitutional protections against racially discriminatory peremptory challenges. Iowa’s new proposal would create a much more detailed procedure for judges to evaluate objections alleging that race or ethnicity played a role in a strike.
The proposed Iowa rules would apply to both criminal and civil trials.
Under the proposal, a party could object when it believes a prospective juror was struck “in whole or in part” because of race or ethnicity.
Once an objection is raised, the attorney or party who struck the juror would be required to explain on the record the race- and ethnicity-neutral reasons for doing so.
The explanation would have to be specific enough for meaningful review by the court.
The proposal goes considerably further by identifying several commonly cited reasons for removing jurors that Iowa courts would be instructed to treat with particular scrutiny.
Reasons considered “presumptively invalid” would include a prospective juror:
- Expressing distrust in the impartiality of the justice system;
- Having previous contact with law enforcement officers;
- Expressing beliefs about the credibility or trustworthiness of people in certain professions;
- Having a close relationship with someone who has been stopped, arrested or convicted of a crime;
- Living in a particular neighborhood or geographic area;
- Having a child outside of marriage;
- Receiving public benefits;
- Not being a native English speaker; or
- Having a particular hairstyle or facial hair.
That would not necessarily mean a lawyer could never remove a juror for one of those reasons.
Instead, the attorney would face a presumption that the reason is invalid and would have to overcome it by demonstrating a particular connection between the reason and the evidence or subject matter of the case while also satisfying the proposed rule’s broader anti-discrimination standard.
The proposal also takes aim at explanations based on subjective observations of a prospective juror.
Claims that a juror was inattentive, stared, failed to make eye contact, displayed problematic body language, had a bad attitude or lacked rapport are specifically identified as reasons that have the potential to produce unfair discrimination.
If an attorney relies upon a juror’s demeanor, behavior or manner of answering questions, the opposing side would be allowed to dispute that characterization.
The judge would then have to resolve the disagreement and make findings supporting the decision.
When the disagreement involves what a prospective juror actually said, the judge would be directed to consult a transcript or audio recording if one is readily available.
The proposed rules would also allow judges to examine whether an attorney questioned prospective jurors differently, whether the stated reason for removing one juror could equally apply to other jurors who were allowed to remain, and whether an attorney has demonstrated a pattern of disproportionately striking people of a particular race or ethnicity.
Perhaps the most consequential provision concerns what a judge would actually have to find before stopping a strike.
The proposal would not require a judge to conclude that an attorney deliberately discriminated against a juror.
Instead, the judge would disallow the strike when an “objective observer,” considering all relevant circumstances, would find a reasonable probability that race or ethnicity was a factor.
The proposed rule specifically says a finding of purposeful discrimination would not be necessary.
It would also not have to be “more likely than not” that race or ethnicity influenced the strike. The possibility would, however, have to amount to more than something merely conceivable.
That represents an effort to address not only intentional discrimination but also implicit or unconscious bias during jury selection.
The proposed definition of an objective observer specifically describes someone aware that implicit or unconscious bias can influence attorneys, parties, judges and jurors.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the changes follows more than a year of work.
The court established the Fairness in Jury Selection Task Force on July 16, 2025, and directed the group to investigate possible changes to Iowa’s rules governing jury strikes with the goal of better protecting constitutional equal-protection and fair-trial rights.
The task force included Iowa Supreme Court Justice Edward Mansfield as chairman along with judges, prosecutors, public defenders, private attorneys, law professors and other legal professionals.
Northern Iowa was represented on the panel as well.
Assistant State Public Defender Aaron Hawbaker of Waterloo served on the task force, as did Iowa Court of Appeals Judge John Sandy of Spirit Lake.
The group met five times in person between September 2025 and June 2026 before reaching consensus on proposed language. The recommendations were formally presented to the Iowa Supreme Court on August 19.
The Supreme Court has not yet adopted the changes.
Christensen’s order makes clear that asking for public comment does not indicate what action the justices ultimately will take.
If adopted, essentially identical provisions would be placed into Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.915 for civil cases and Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.18 for criminal cases.
The issue reaches into one of the most fundamental parts of Iowa’s justice system: deciding who will sit in judgment of another person.
Iowa’s courts have wrestled with jury selection and fairness issues for years. A previous Supreme Court committee examining Iowa’s jury system recommended changes involving juror qualifications, jury lists, challenges for cause, peremptory strikes, judicial training and methods for reducing implicit bias.
The importance of jury trials themselves was highlighted when Iowa courts faced the extraordinary challenge of restarting trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. As NorthIowaToday.com reported at the time, the Iowa Supreme Court developed statewide procedures for safely resuming jury trials while emphasizing that jury trials are constitutionally guaranteed and essential to Iowa’s justice system.
Now the court is considering a different kind of change — one aimed at how that jury is assembled in the first place.
Iowans will have an opportunity to weigh in before the justices decide whether to proceed.
Any interested person, organization, agency, attorney, judge or Iowa Judicial Branch employee may submit written comments on the proposed rules.
Comments must identify the specific rule and line number being addressed. Email submissions must contain the comments as an attached Microsoft Word document or PDF rather than placing the comments in the body of the email.
The deadline for public comments is 4:30 p.m. Monday, October 26, 2026.