HR-7946-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
What it does
The bill would require U.S. district courts to excuse a summoned juror who is breastfeeding when the juror asks, either by the court or by the clerk if the court's jury selection plan allows. It would add the same request-based exclusion to the D.C. Superior Court's jury rules. The bill sets no age limit for the child and no end date, and it does not say what proof a court may require.
Who benefits
Breastfeeding mothers summoned for federal or D.C. Superior Court jury service, who could avoid pumping or feeding problems, separation from infants, or finding childcare. Nursing infants, who may keep consistent feeding. Employers of nursing parents, who may avoid scheduling disruptions from lengthy trials.
Who is hurt
Court clerks and judges, who may face added administrative work and more requests for excusal. Litigants and prosecutors in federal and D.C. cases, who could face smaller or less varied jury pools. Other jurors, who may serve more often as the pool shrinks. Women who breastfeed lose none of the right to serve, but some may feel pressured to opt out of civic participation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that breastfeeding is a time-sensitive health need for both mother and infant, and that trials can run for days with limited breaks and no private space. They contend a clear, request-based excusal gives courts a uniform standard, replacing inconsistent case-by-case hardship rulings that may leave nursing mothers choosing between legal duty and infant feeding.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that jury service is a core civic duty, and that courts already have hardship excusal and deferral tools to handle individual needs. They contend an automatic excusal with no time limit or proof requirement could shrink jury pools, shift the burden onto other citizens, and reduce the share of women with young children on juries, undermining representativeness.
Constitutional context
Congress has authority to set federal jury qualifications and excusal rules under Article I (necessary and proper power over the federal courts), and for D.C. under its Article I, Section 8, clause 17 power. The Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement, applied in Taylor v. Louisiana (1975), is relevant because excusing a group such as nursing mothers could affect jury pool representativeness, though a voluntary request-based excusal differs from systematic exclusion.
Checks and balances
Congress would limit judicial discretion over these excusals by making them mandatory on request, while courts and clerks would keep control over administration through their jury selection plans.
Historical precedent
Federal law at 28 U.S.C. 1863 and 1866 already allows excusal for certain groups, such as those over 70 and those with undue hardship, and many states have enacted their own breastfeeding-related jury excusal or deferral provisions.