Weekly Roundup for the week of May 25, 2026
United States Supreme Court
Peremptory Challenges – A trial court, to correctly apply the third step of Batson’s three-step test, must give the defendant a sufficient opportunity to rebut the race neutral reasons that the prosecutor provides for a peremptory strike. Pitchford v. Cain, No. 24–7351 (May 28, 2026)
(Editor’s Note: Washington has rejected Batson’s focus on purposeful discrimination and instead asks whether an objective observer “could” view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge and requires courts to analyze numerous additional factors. GR 37, State v. Jefferson, 192 Wash. 2d 225, 230 (2018), State v. Sum, 199 Wn.2d 627 (2022))
Federal Habeas – A prisoner who collaterally attacks the validity of his federal conviction must proceed through 28 U. S. C. §2255, not 18 U. S. C. §3582; the supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that justify compassionate release. Fernandez v. United States, No. 24–556 (May 28, 2026)
Division I
Involuntary Treatment Act – County prosecutors are responsible for representing ITA petitioners that are not state hospitals or facilities. The AGO is responsible for representing ITA petitioners that are state hospitals or facilities. RCW 71.05.130. Here, the AGO represented the state hospital on the hospital’s petition for a 180-day less restrictive alternative order (LRO). The LRO provided that A.R. would be transferred to Aristo Healthcare, which is not a state hospital or facility. Meaning, the county prosecutor was then responsible for representing Aristo’s Designated Crisis Responder (DCR) when Aristo’s DCR filed the next 180-day petition. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the AGO’s motion to withdraw. In the Matter of the Detention of A.R., No. 87531-1-I (May 26, 2026)
GR 37 – An objective observer could not view race as a factor in the State’s peremptory challenge of an Asian juror where the GR 37 factors and the circumstances indicate the prosecutor’s concern was the juror’s negative views about the prison system, not the juror’s race. The trial court’s GR 37 analysis was incomplete. However, the appeals court analyzed the GR 37 factors de novo and held that the peremptory challenge did not violate GR 37. State v. Thompson, No. 85984-6-I (May 26, 2026)