Connection lost
Server error
Strauder v. West Virginia Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Black defendant challenged a West Virginia law barring Black citizens from jury service. The Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional, finding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from excluding potential jurors solely on the basis of race.
Legal Significance: This was the first major Supreme Court case to interpret the Equal Protection Clause. It established that overt, state-mandated racial discrimination in jury selection violates the Fourteenth Amendment, affirming a defendant’s right to a jury pool selected without regard to race.
Strauder v. West Virginia Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Strauder, a Black man, was indicted for murder in West Virginia. At the time, a West Virginia statute explicitly limited jury eligibility to “all white male persons who are twenty-one years of age and who are citizens of this State.” Consequently, the grand jury that indicted Strauder and the petit jury venire from which his trial jury would be selected were composed exclusively of white men. Before his trial, Strauder petitioned to remove the case to federal court, arguing that the state law denied him the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The state court denied his petition. Strauder then moved to quash the jury venire on the same constitutional grounds, but this motion was also denied. He was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced by an all-white jury. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and Strauder sought a writ of error from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state statute that explicitly disqualifies citizens from jury service solely on the basis of their race or color violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes. The Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of West Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pro
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state statute that explicitly disqualifies citizens from jury service solely on the basis of their race or color violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established the foundational principle that the Equal Protection Clause Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
Legal Rule
A state law that expressly excludes citizens from serving as grand or Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequa
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Strong, interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state law that explicitly excludes citizens from serving on a
