The jury selection rule that reached only three kinds of civil case.
California's peremptory challenge statute was written in 2020 with a second date inside it: on January 1, 2026 it was to take over jury selection in civil trials. A bill signed in October 2025 deleted that date and named three categories of civil case instead. Three consequences for practicing attorneys.
By Helena Harper, Editorial Director
The change
California's statute on discriminatory peremptory challenges, Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, was written with two dates in it. It began governing jury selection in criminal trials on January 1, 2022. It was scheduled to reach civil trials on January 1, 2026. That second date no longer exists. Senate Bill 645, approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on October 11, 2025 as Chapter 656 of the Statutes of 2025, deleted it and substituted a short list of civil cases.
Since January 1, 2026, section 231.7 has governed jury selection in criminal trials and in three categories of civil case. Every other civil jury trial in the state continues to run on the Batson and Wheeler framework it ran on before.
Why the statute had two dates
Assembly Bill 3070, approved by the Governor on September 30, 2020 as Chapter 318 of the Statutes of 2020, added section 231.7 using a staged drafting device. Section 2 of the bill added a version of the statute providing that the section does not apply to civil cases, and closing with the instruction that it "shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed." Section 3 of the same bill added a second version, without the civil exclusion, providing that it "shall become operative January 1, 2026."
One version was to switch off and the other to switch on, and the practical difference between them was that civil trials would be swept in. The Legislative Counsel's Digest for AB 3070 put it plainly: the bill would, until January 1, 2026, specify that its provisions do not apply to civil cases. Subdivision (i), common to both versions, sets the other date, applying the section in all jury trials in which jury selection begins on or after January 1, 2022.
What SB 645 did
The bill, authored by Senator Thomas Umberg, is two sections long. Section 1 amends the version of section 231.7 that AB 3070 had scheduled for repeal, removing the repeal date. Section 2 repeals the version that AB 3070 had scheduled to become operative on January 1, 2026. What survives is the text that carries the civil exclusion, now with no sunset and with exceptions written into it. The Legislative Counsel's Digest states the effect: the bill "would extend the prohibition against application of these provisions to civil cases indefinitely, except as specified."
One further change travels with it. Among the circumstances a court may weigh under subdivision (d) is whether the counsel exercising the challenge has used peremptory challenges disproportionately against a protected group, in the present case or in past cases. That factor now reads "counsel or counsel's office, if it is a public entity," which confines the office-wide pattern inquiry to public offices.
The three categories
Subdivision (k)(1) states the general rule that the section does not apply to civil cases. Subdivision (k)(2) lists the exceptions. The first is civil cases involving a civil rights violation, and the statute enumerates what that includes: actions alleging a violation against a protected class listed in subdivision (a); actions under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Civil Code section 52.1) or the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code section 51); actions under section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code; actions under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the federal Fair Housing Act; and actions under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, including but not limited to actions alleging discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
The second category is actions for the civil commitment of a person, including a person determined to be a sexually violent predator under the Welfare and Institutions Code. The third is civil cases for damages arising from a hate crime.
A new subdivision (l) supplies the mechanism. For a civil case governed by subdivision (k)(2), the party bringing the qualifying claim must notify the court and the other party or parties that the section's procedures apply, after the final status conference or, if no final status conference is held, at least 15 calendar days before the date of trial.
What the statute requires where it applies
Section 231.7 prohibits using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups. A party or the trial court on its own motion may object before the jury is impaneled, and further discussion happens outside the panel's presence. Notwithstanding section 226, the party exercising the challenge then states its reasons.
The court evaluates those reasons in light of the circumstances and considers only the reasons actually given. Under subdivision (d)(1) the court need not find purposeful discrimination; the objection is sustained if there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person would view a listed characteristic as a factor in the challenge. The statute defines a substantial likelihood as more than a mere possibility but less than more likely than not, and an objectively reasonable person as one aware that unconscious bias, as well as purposeful discrimination, has resulted in the unfair exclusion of jurors in California.
Subdivision (e) makes a list of reasons presumptively invalid, among them distrust of law enforcement, a close relationship with someone who has been arrested or convicted, a prospective juror's neighborhood, speaking another language, and dress or appearance. Subdivision (g) treats a further set as historically associated with improper discrimination, including inattentiveness, a failure to make eye contact, problematic demeanor, and unintelligent or confused answers. Where such a reason is offered, the trial court must be able to confirm the asserted behavior from its own observations or those of counsel for the objecting party, and counsel must explain why that demeanor matters to the case being tried.
If the objection is granted, subdivision (h) leaves the court a menu: quash the venire and start jury selection again, declare a mistrial at the objecting party's request, seat the challenged juror, provide additional challenges, or fashion another remedy. On appeal under subdivision (j), the denial of an objection is reviewed de novo, and an erroneous denial is deemed prejudicial, which means reversal and a new trial.
Three consequences for practicing attorneys
What changes, in practice, for lawyers trying civil cases in California:
Two procedures, sorted by claim
The framework a civil trial uses for a challenged strike now turns on what is pleaded. A Fair Employment and Housing Act claim, a Bane Act or Unruh Act claim, a section 1983 claim, a civil commitment action, or a hate crime damages action runs on section 231.7. A contract or ordinary negligence trial in the same courthouse runs on Batson and Wheeler.
A pretrial notice with its own deadline
Subdivision (l) puts the duty on the party bringing the qualifying claim: notify the court and every other party that the section applies, after the final status conference, or, if none is held, at least 15 calendar days before the trial date. It is a calendar item, not a trial-day announcement.
The record is made when the strike is made
Under the statute the striking party states its reasons on objection, and an appellate court considers only the reasons actually given. Subdivision (g)(2) also asks counsel offering a demeanor-based reason to explain why that demeanor matters to the case being tried, which is said out loud in voir dire or not at all.
Because the coverage rule keys on the claim rather than on the courtroom, a mixed complaint decides the question at the pleading stage rather than the trial stage. A wrongful termination case pleaded with a Fair Employment and Housing Act cause of action sits inside subdivision (k)(2). The same dispute pleaded only in contract does not.
For four years California ran two systems for the same act, striking a juror. In criminal court the striking party explained itself under a statute that names presumptively invalid reasons and does not require a finding of purposeful discrimination. In civil court the older framework held. The calendar was supposed to close that gap at the start of this year.
Instead the gap was redrawn. The line now runs through the complaint: civil rights and fair housing and employment claims, civil commitments, and hate crime damages actions on one side, everything else on the other, with a notice due before trial to tell the court which side a case is on.
Archivar
The Archivar Editorial Desk
Fact-checked against the authorities listed below. This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice.
Sources: California Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, current text (California Legislative Information); Senate Bill 645 (Umberg), Chapter 656, Statutes of 2025, bill text and Legislative Counsel's Digest (California Legislative Information); Assembly Bill 3070, Chapter 318, Statutes of 2020, bill text and Legislative Counsel's Digest (California Legislative Information); California Code of Civil Procedure section 226.
