Jury Service Non-Discrimination Act

Summary#

The bill would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of reasons someone cannot be excluded from serving on a federal jury. In short, it aims to bar removing potential jurors because they are LGBTQ+.

  • Main change: inserts the words “sexual orientation, gender identity,” into the federal law that forbids excluding people from jury service on certain grounds.
  • Policy goal: to prevent discrimination in federal jury selection based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • Timing: introduced in the Senate on June 18, 2025, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
  • What is unclear: the text does not spell out how courts should enforce the rule, what remedies would apply, or how it interacts with existing court rules about jury selection.

What it means for you#

  • Potential jurors (LGBTQ+ people): They could no longer be excluded from federal jury service simply because of sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • Attorneys and judges: They must not remove prospective jurors on those grounds. The bill does not explain how courts should decide if a removal was for that reason.
  • Federal courts and court staff: They may need to update jury selection materials and practices to reflect the new prohibition.
  • Defendants and plaintiffs in federal cases: Jury pools may become more diverse in sexual orientation and gender identity; the bill does not change other rules about who is otherwise eligible.
  • General public: If enacted, the law would apply only to federal jury service. It does not by itself change state jury rules.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • This could increase administrative costs for courts (for example, updating forms and training judges and staff), but the bill provides no cost estimate.
  • There could be more litigation over claims that someone was excluded for a prohibited reason. The bill does not estimate related court or enforcement costs.
  • Any savings or losses to federal revenue are not described.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to expand non‑discrimination protections in federal jury service to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
  • This could be seen as promoting fairer and more representative juries.
  • Supporters may view the change as closing a gap so that jury exclusion rules cover major categories of protected characteristics.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill does not explain how courts should determine whether a juror was excluded because of sexual orientation or gender identity, which could lead to more lawsuits.
  • It is unclear how this change would interact with existing doctrines and rules about peremptory challenges (the right to reject jurors without giving a reason).
  • The bill does not detail enforcement mechanisms or remedies for violations, leaving questions about how the rule would be applied in practice.
  • There is no fiscal estimate, so the expected costs for courts and parties are unknown.