The number of peremptory challenges allowed depends on the court and the type of case. In federal criminal trials, each side gets between 3 and 20 depending on the severity of the charge. Federal civil cases give each party 3. State courts set their own numbers, and the range is wide. Every peremptory strike, regardless of jurisdiction, is subject to constitutional limits that bar using it to remove a juror because of race, ethnicity, or gender.
Federal Criminal Cases
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24 sets three tiers based on the seriousness of the charge:1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 24 – Trial Jurors
- Capital cases: 20 peremptory challenges per side when the government seeks the death penalty.
- Other felonies: 6 for the government and 10 for the defendant (or co-defendants jointly) when the charge carries more than one year of imprisonment.
- Misdemeanors: 3 per side when the charge carries a fine, up to one year in jail, or both.
The asymmetry in felony cases is deliberate. Because the defendant’s liberty is at stake, the rules give the defense a numerical edge in shaping the jury, while the prosecution’s smaller allotment reflects the structural advantages the government already carries into trial.
Federal Civil Cases
Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1870, each party in a federal civil case is entitled to three peremptory challenges.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1870 – Challenges Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(b) simply directs courts to follow the statute, so there is no procedural overlay adding to that number.3Legal Information Institute. Rule 47 – Selecting Jurors
Extra Challenges When Alternates Are Seated
Alternates are picked separately, so federal criminal rules add peremptory challenges just for that part of jury selection:
- One or two alternates: one additional challenge per side.
- Three or four alternates: two additional challenges per side.
- Five or six alternates: three additional challenges per side.
These extras can only be used against prospective alternates, not the main panel.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 24 – Trial Jurors Federal civil rules do not specify a separate alternate-juror allotment, so civil courts handle it through the judge’s general discretion over jury selection.
Multiple Plaintiffs or Multiple Defendants
When several parties line up on the same side, the challenge math gets adjusted so one side cannot dominate selection through sheer numbers. In federal criminal trials, the court may grant additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants and may let them use those challenges separately or jointly.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 24 – Trial Jurors In federal civil trials, the statute gives judges similar flexibility: multiple plaintiffs or defendants can be treated as one party sharing three challenges, or the court can authorize additional challenges to be exercised separately or jointly.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1870 – Challenges
Judges usually look at whether co-parties have aligned or conflicting interests. Co-defendants running the same defense rarely need separate pools. When they are pointing fingers at each other, forcing them to share would penalize one of them, and most judges grant separate challenges to keep selection fair.
State Courts
State courts set their own numbers, and the differences can be dramatic. In criminal cases, non-capital felonies typically run from about 3 to 15 per side depending on the state. States handling death-penalty cases tend to grant the most, sometimes matching or exceeding the federal capital allotment of 20. For civil trials, most states allow between 3 and 8 per party, with three the most common baseline. Some states scale the number up for longer or more complex cases. Because these rules live in state statute or court rule, the count varies from courthouse to courthouse, and an attorney practicing across state lines has to check the local number before every trial.
One state has departed from the model entirely. Arizona in 2022 became the first state to eliminate peremptory challenges in both criminal and civil trials.
Limits on How a Peremptory Can Be Used
A peremptory challenge does not require a reason, but a strike still cannot be based on race, ethnicity, or gender. The Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits prosecutors from striking jurors on account of race.4Justia Law. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) Later rulings extended the same prohibition to civil litigants5Legal Information Institute. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) and to strikes based on gender.6United States Courts. Facts and Case Summary – J.E.B. v. Alabama
When an attorney suspects the other side is striking jurors from a protected group, they raise a Batson challenge, and the judge works through three steps:
- Step one: the objecting party points to facts suggesting a pattern of discriminatory strikes, enough to raise an inference that race, ethnicity, or gender motivated the challenge.
- Step two: the burden shifts to the striking attorney to offer a race-neutral or gender-neutral explanation. The reason does not need to be persuasive or plausible at this stage; the Supreme Court has said even a “silly or superstitious” reason satisfies step two, because the only question is whether it is facially neutral.7Justia Law. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995)
- Step three: the judge weighs the evidence and decides whether the neutral explanation is genuine or a cover for discrimination. A flimsy reason that passed step two can still be rejected as pretext.4Justia Law. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)
If the judge finds the strike was discriminatory, the challenge is denied and the juror stays. In serious cases, the court can dismiss the whole panel and restart selection.
Several states have gone further than Batson. Washington’s General Rule 37, adopted in 2018, directs judges to deny a peremptory strike if an objective observer aware of implicit and institutional bias could view race or ethnicity as a factor, without requiring proof of purposeful discrimination. The rule also lists reasons that are presumptively invalid, including a juror’s distrust of law enforcement, residence in a high-crime neighborhood, or receipt of government benefits.8Washington Courts. GR 37 – Jury Selection California, Connecticut, and New Jersey have adopted similar objective-observer frameworks. In those jurisdictions, the number of peremptories you nominally receive matters less than the shrinking list of grounds on which you can actually use them.