New Jersey Senate Bill S3796

New Jersey 2026-2027 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/5/26
• Refer: 3/5/26

Caption

Prohibits juror disqualification based on gender identity or sexual orientation; codifies procedures when discriminatory use of peremptory challenges is alleged.

Summary

S3796 would expand New Jersey’s jury-disqualification protections by expressly prohibiting exclusion from grand or petit jury service based on gender identity or affectional/sexual orientation. It amends the existing anti-discrimination jury statute, R.S.10:1-8, to add those protected characteristics to the list that already includes race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status, and sex. The bill also updates the penalty structure for intentional discriminatory exclusion of jurors, replacing the outdated misdemeanor reference with a civil penalty framework and clarifying that the conduct must be purposeful or knowing. The bill also revises the rules governing peremptory challenges in civil and criminal trials. It bars parties from using peremptory strikes based on assumptions that a prospective juror cannot be fair because of a protected characteristic, and it creates a formal procedure for objecting to allegedly discriminatory strikes. Under that procedure, the objecting party must make a prima facie showing of discrimination, after which the burden shifts to the party exercising the strike to provide a neutral, situation-specific explanation. The court must evaluate the explanation on the record and may deny the strike and impose remedies such as reseating the juror, forfeiting the challenge, or restarting jury selection.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would amend R.S.10:1-8 and N.J.S.2B:23-10 and add a new section to Title 2B, thereby broadening state law protections in jury selection and formalizing judicial procedures for handling discriminatory peremptory challenges. It would directly affect court administration, trial judges, attorneys, jury commissioners, and other officials involved in summoning and selecting jurors. The bill also changes the enforcement mechanism for discriminatory juror exclusion from the older criminal terminology to a civil penalty of $5,000 collected through summary proceedings, while preserving liability for intentional discrimination.

Sentiment

The bill appears to be framed as a civil-rights and fairness measure, with the sponsor’s statement emphasizing equal access to jury service and the need to modernize outdated statutory language. The overall tone of the bill is protective and procedural, aiming to align jury-selection law with constitutional anti-discrimination principles and existing modern criminal-code terminology. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote-based sentiment in the available materials.

Contention

The main substantive issue is the expansion of protected categories in jury service to include gender identity and sexual orientation, which may draw support from civil-rights advocates and concern from those skeptical of expanding protected classifications. A second area of possible contention is the new peremptory-challenge procedure, which adds a burden-shifting framework and gives judges authority to reject strikes and impose remedies; litigators may view this as either a necessary safeguard against discrimination or an added constraint on trial strategy. The bill also changes the sanction from a criminal offense to a civil penalty, which may be seen as a practical modernization by supporters but could be criticized by others as weakening deterrence, even though the bill retains a monetary penalty and requires purposeful or knowing conduct.