Definition
Peremptory describes something that is absolute, final, and not subject to challenge, delay, qualification, or the need for justification. As a legal modifier, it signals that a procedural right, command, or ruling operates unconditionally — either requiring no cause to be shown or admitting of no further contest. The term functions almost exclusively as an adjective and carries different operational meanings depending on the noun it modifies.
1. Peremptory challenge: A party's right in jury selection to reject a prospective juror without stating any reason. Distinguished from a challenge for cause, which requires articulation of a specific disqualifying basis. Peremptory challenges are limited in number and governed by statute or court rule. The right is not absolute — under Batson v. Kentucky and its progeny, challenges may not be exercised on the basis of race, sex, or other protected characteristics.
2. Peremptory instruction (directed verdict): A judge's instruction that removes a question from the jury's consideration and requires a specific finding, because the evidence permits only one rational conclusion. The term is now largely superseded by "directed verdict" or "judgment as a matter of law" in most modern practice.
3. Peremptory writ or mandamus: A final, unconditional writ commanding immediate action, distinguished from an alternative writ that first offers the respondent an opportunity to show cause why compliance should be excused.
4. Peremptory nonsuit: A dismissal of a plaintiff's case, entered as a matter of right by the court, that bars the plaintiff from proceeding further — historically distinguished from a voluntary nonsuit by the plaintiff.
5. Peremptory plea: In older pleading, a plea that goes to the absolute destruction of the opposing party's claim — a plea in bar — rather than a dilatory plea that merely delays or defeats the form of the action. Burrill traces the root meaning directly here: from the Latin peremptorius, that which destroys or wholly defeats.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Precluding debate or expostulation; not admitting of question or appeal. Positive in opinion or judgment; absolutely certain or overconfident, often in a pejorative sense (dogmatic, dictatorial).
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Positive; absolute; decisive; conclusive; final. Also, positive in opinion; decided; dictatorial; dogmatical.
The ordinary English sense emphasizes a tone or manner — someone being peremptory is being imperious, brooking no argument. The legal sense strips away the interpersonal register entirely and describes a structural feature of a procedural right or court command: it operates without requiring justification or admitting further contestation. A peremptory challenge is not "bossy"; it is structurally unconditional. Researchers working with older judicial opinions should be alert to context, since courts sometimes use the word in its common rhetorical sense rather than as a term of art.
---
Common Confusion
Peremptory challenge vs. challenge for cause: These are the two mechanisms for removing prospective jurors during voir dire, and they are frequently conflated by non-specialists. A challenge for cause requires articulated grounds and is theoretically unlimited in number; the court rules on it. A peremptory challenge requires no stated reason, is strictly limited in number, and is exercised unilaterally by the party — subject only to the constitutional constraint against discriminatory use. The constitutional limits on peremptory challenges (Batson and its extensions) do not apply to challenges for cause.
Peremptory vs. absolute (in writ practice): In older writ terminology, "absolute" and "peremptory" were used nearly interchangeably to describe a final writ following noncompliance with an alternative writ. Researchers will find both terms in historical sources describing the same procedural moment; treat them as functionally synonymous in that context.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The peremptory challenge is by far the most litigated and constitutionally contested use of this term in the modern corpus, and it has undergone significant doctrinal transformation since the mid-twentieth century. Any research touching jury selection must account for the layered constitutional framework built on top of what was once an unreviewable right. Batson opened the door; subsequent decisions extended its reach to civil cases, to gender, and to defense counsel as well as prosecutors. The Law Mind Encyclopedia entry on Voir Dire, Peremptory Challenges, and Batson maps this evolution directly.
In historical sources — particularly pre-twentieth century treatises and English common law materials — "peremptory" appears most heavily in pleading contexts (peremptory plea, peremptory exception) that have no direct modern counterpart. Researchers reading Bracton, Fitzherbert, or early Chitty will encounter these usages frequently. Burrill's attention to the Latin root (peremptorius — that which destroys) is the most useful conceptual key for understanding why the term attached to pleas in bar as opposed to dilatory pleas: the peremptory plea killed the action outright.
The term "peremptory instruction" survives in some state court systems, particularly in older Southern and Southwestern jurisdictions, as a synonym for directed verdict. Federal practice has largely abandoned this phrasing. Researchers using state court materials from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries should not assume the term refers to jury selection; context determines which legal form is at issue.
A trap in historical legal dictionaries: several sources, including the second edition of Black's, embed the peremptory entry within broader adjacent entries and can be difficult to locate by direct index. Burrill provides the most analytically precise treatment of the term's underlying logic.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are in close agreement on the core meaning — final, absolute, requiring no cause, admitting no delay or contest — and the consensus is durable across sources. Bouvier and Burrill are the most analytically useful. Bouvier enumerates the major compound usages (peremptory action, nonsuit, exception, undertaking, challenge) and supplies early authority including Fitzherbert and the Institutes, grounding the term's reach across the common law and civil law traditions. Burrill adds the important conceptual distinction between "that which disposes of a matter at once" and "that which requires no cause to be shown," recognizing that the term does two slightly different kinds of legal work depending on context.
Anderson's formulation — "final, determinate, without hope of renewing or altering" — captures the procedural finality dimension cleanly. Black's first edition is crisp: "not admitting of question, delay, or reconsideration; not requiring any cause to be shown."
What the historical dictionaries collectively underemphasize is the constitutional dimension of the peremptory challenge, which was not yet developed when most of these sources were written. The challenge is treated as an unreviewable right — which it was, as a matter of law, until the twentieth century. Researchers should treat the historical dictionaries as reliable on the structural and pleading meanings but incomplete on the jury-selection application as it now stands.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The number of peremptory challenges available to each party varies by jurisdiction and by case type (civil vs. criminal, felony vs. misdemeanor), and is set by statute or court rule. The constitutional floor prohibiting discriminatory use is federal and applies in all jurisdictions, but states may and do extend broader protections. Some states have experimented with eliminating or substantially curtailing peremptory challenges altogether.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Jury Selection — Voir Dire, Peremptory Challenges, and Batson (Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
---