Definition
A peremptory challenge is the right of a party in litigation to reject a prospective juror without stating any reason for the dismissal. Unlike a challenge for cause — which requires the challenging party to articulate a specific, legally cognizable basis — a peremptory challenge is exercised as a matter of right, up to the number permitted by statute or rule, with no justification required.
Historically, the right was understood as belonging to the criminal defendant alone, framed as a protection in favor of life (in favorem vitæ) in capital and serious criminal cases. Modern practice has expanded the right to both parties in criminal proceedings and to parties in civil litigation, though the number of peremptory challenges available varies considerably by jurisdiction and by whether the proceeding is civil or criminal, felony or misdemeanor.
One major constitutional constraint now governs the exercise of peremptory challenges: a party may not use them to exclude jurors on the basis of race or sex. This rule derives from a line of Supreme Court decisions beginning with Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and later extended in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994). Where a facially neutral strike appears to be motivated by race or sex, the opposing party may raise a Batson challenge, shifting the burden to the striking party to provide a race-neutral, sex-neutral explanation.
Common Language
Wiktionary: "The right of an attorney to reject potential jurors without stating a reason."
Webster's 1913: The term does not appear as a standalone entry. "Peremptory" is defined as "Precluding debate or expostulation; not admitting of question or appeal; positive; absolute; authoritative; decisive."
The common definition captures the mechanics reasonably well. The meaningful gap is constitutional: the Wiktionary framing suggests the right is wholly unrestricted. In law, it is unrestricted as to reasons that must be stated — but it is not unrestricted substantively. Race- and sex-based exclusions are unconstitutional even though no reason need be offered unless challenged. Researchers relying on the plain English definition may underestimate how heavily litigated the "no-reason-required" right has become.
Common Confusion
Peremptory challenge vs. challenge for cause: These are the two mechanisms for removing prospective jurors during voir dire, but they operate differently. A challenge for cause requires the moving party to demonstrate a specific, articulable reason why the juror cannot be impartial — bias, relationship to a party, prior knowledge of the case. The judge rules on the challenge. Challenges for cause are theoretically unlimited in number. Peremptory challenges require no stated reason, are decided by the party alone (not the court), but are capped in number. Confusion between the two is common in older sources that use "challenge" without qualification.
Peremptory challenge vs. Batson challenge: A Batson challenge is not a method of removing a juror. It is the procedural mechanism for contesting an opponent's peremptory challenge when discrimination is suspected. The two are often mentioned together, but they operate in opposite directions — one removes a juror, the other contests a removal.
Why It Matters in Research
The historical framing matters for corpus navigation. Older dictionary sources — including Black's and Burrill's — define the peremptory challenge exclusively as a criminal defendant's right, and specifically tether it to capital cases and in favorem vitæ rationale. Researchers working with pre-twentieth-century sources should expect this framing to dominate. The extension of peremptory challenges to the prosecution, and later to civil parties, is largely a statutory development not reflected in the foundational dictionary literature.
The Batson doctrine represents the most significant doctrinal transformation of this concept in the modern era, and it has no footprint in the historical dictionaries. Any Law Mind source predating 1986 will describe peremptory challenges as effectively unreviewable. This is not error — it was accurate at the time — but it creates a sharp discontinuity that researchers must track carefully when comparing older and newer treatments of jury selection.
The number of peremptory challenges permitted is purely procedural and varies widely: by court (federal vs. state), by case type (capital vs. non-capital, felony vs. misdemeanor, civil vs. criminal), and by party (defense vs. prosecution in criminal cases). Do not assume uniformity across sources or jurisdictions.
The Batson line of cases also connects this term outward to constitutional equal protection doctrine, making it a bridge term between criminal procedure and constitutional law materials in the Law Mind corpus.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's, Burrill's, and Rapalje & Lawrence are in near-complete agreement. All three define peremptory challenge as a prisoner's right in criminal practice to reject a limited number of jurors without stating cause. Rapalje & Lawrence adds the in favorem vitæ framing most explicitly — the privilege exists "in favor of life" — placing the right in its historical context as a protection against wrongful conviction in capital proceedings. None of the three sources references prosecutorial peremptory challenges, civil party challenges, or any constitutional constraint on their exercise. The silence on Batson is expected given the sources' vintage, but it is the single most important gap between historical dictionary coverage and modern doctrine. Researchers treating these definitions as complete statements of current law will miss a substantial body of constitutional litigation.
Jurisdictional Note
Federal criminal practice governs peremptory challenges through the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. State allocations vary significantly: some states provide more peremptory challenges than federal practice, and several distinguish between capital and non-capital felonies. Civil peremptory challenge rights are similarly non-uniform. Batson applies in all jurisdictions as a constitutional floor, but state courts may provide broader protections.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Jury Selection — Voir Dire, Peremptory Challenges, and Batson (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)