Federal Juries Must Now Provide Accommodations for Disabilities, Eliminating 'Infirmity' Exclusion

This is the Disability and Age in Jury Service Nondiscrimination Act, and it’s a big, necessary update to who gets to serve on a federal jury. Simply put, this bill explicitly bans discrimination against potential jurors based on disability. It updates Title 28, U.S. Code, which governs the federal judiciary, to make it illegal to exclude someone from a federal grand or petit jury because of a disability, placing it on the same legal footing as discrimination based on race or national origin.

The End of the 'Too Frail' Excuse

For years, federal courts could exclude people from jury duty if they had an “infirmity”—a vague term that basically meant the court thought you were too sick or frail to handle the service. This bill scraps that language entirely. Instead of relying on a broad, outdated concept of “infirmity,” the new standard says a person can only be excluded if their disability is something the court cannot reasonably accommodate. If you’re otherwise qualified for jury duty, the court is now legally required to make reasonable adjustments to let you serve.

What “Reasonable Accommodation” Looks Like

Think about what this means in practice. If you are a qualified accountant or software engineer, and you happen to use a wheelchair or require a specific type of hearing assistance, the court can no longer say, “Sorry, the jury box isn't accessible, so you’re out.” Under this new rule (Section 1865), the court must provide that reasonable accommodation—whether it’s a ramp, specialized listening devices, or perhaps a break schedule adjustment for medical reasons—to allow you to participate. This isn't just about fairness; it’s about ensuring that the juries deciding major federal cases reflect the actual community they serve.

The Catch: Defining “Reasonable”

While this is a clear win for civil rights and inclusion, the bill does leave a medium-sized gray area in the implementation. The entire system hinges on the term “reasonable accommodation.” What one federal district court in a major city deems “reasonable” (say, installing a high-tech communication system) might be considered too costly or burdensome by a smaller, older district court facility in a rural area. If the guidelines for what counts as “reasonable” aren't clear, we could see inconsistent application across the country. Federal courts will now have the administrative burden of defining and providing these accommodations, and how they interpret that cost and effort will be crucial to whether this bill truly opens up the jury box or just creates a new hurdle for people with disabilities to clear.