Flowers v. Mississippi
2019 United States Supreme Court case
Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17–9572, 588 U.S. 284 (2019), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors during a series of Mississippi criminal trials for Curtis Flowers, a black man convicted on murder charges. The Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky that the use of peremptory challenges solely on the basis of race is unconstitutional. This case examined whether the Mississippi Supreme Court erred in how it applied Batson to this case. The Supreme Court ruled that Flowers' case fell under Batson and that the state inappropriately removed most of the potential black jurors during the trials.
Background
Peremptory challenges have a long history in the common law. In the United States they have been allowed by statute in federal criminal trials since 1790. States are generally free to legislate their own rules and procedures for peremptory challenges as long as they don't violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Flowers v. Mississippi” enters the record as 2019 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Flowers, Mississippi and United can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Flowers v. Mississippi” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Flowers, Mississippi and United provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q65049995. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2019 and 1790.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Flowers v. Mississippi”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Flowers v. Mississippi primary sources, Flowers v. Mississippi archive and Flowers research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Flowers v. Mississippi”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Flowers v. Mississippi” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.