Confirming that we never should have taken this case, the Court almost entirely ignores--and certainly does not refute--the race-neutral reasons given by the State for striking Wright and four other black prospective jurors. Two of these prospective jurors knew Flowers' family and had been sued by Tardy Furniture-- the family business of one of the victims and also of one of the trial witnesses. One refused to consider the death penalty and apparently lied about working side-by-side with Flowers' sister. One was related to Flowers and lied about her opinion of the death penalty to try to get out of jury duty. And one said that because she worked with two of Flowers' family members, she might favor him and would not consider only the evidence presented.
Those seem like good reasons. Perhaps I will change my mind as I read all of the opinions more closely.
The majority clearly believed that the sixth trial was indelibly tainted by what transpired at the preceeding five trials -- all of which were prosecuted by the same prosecutor. Thomas & Gorsuch were willing to ignore that sordid history. Indeed, Thomas was willing to scrap Batson altogether. So much for stare decisis when it comes to Thomas.
Thomas is indeed the justice most willing to overrule precedent he considers erroneous. It's not a new thing for him.
The majority opinion makes it clear that some white potential jurors not struck by the prosecutor had similar relationships to the defendant, victim, or witnesses as that of some black potential jurors that were struck. Even more significantly, the prosecutor extensively investigated the black potential jurors while refraining from investigating the white ones.
As pointed out by Kavanaugh, if you investigate everyone carefully enough you'll find a reason to reject them. Thus, if the prosecutor investigates the potential black jurors more carefully then the process is biased even if the reasons later proferred for rejecting them are, in the abstract, valid.