Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-222_2c83.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

plaintiffs  prove  their  cases  when  direct  evidence  can  be 
hard to come by.  See Basic, 485 U. S., at 245.  These pre-
sumptions  operate  by  allowing  the  plaintiff  to  prove  only 
certain specified “predicate fact[s]” at the outset.  St. Mary’s 
Honor  Center  v.  Hicks,  509  U. S.  502,  506  (1993).    If  the 
plaintiff does so, an inference or “presumption” arises that
the plaintiff has met its burden of persuasion, at least “in 
the absence” of some competing “explanation.”  Ibid. (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted).  At that point, the defendant
bears  a  burden  of  production  to  present  evidence  that,  if
“taken as true,” would “permit the conclusion” that the pre-
sumption  in  the  plaintiff ’s  favor  is  mistaken.    Id.,  at  509 
(emphasis  deleted).    If  the  defendant  produces  such  evi-
dence, the presumption “drops from the case.”  Id., at 507 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  “[T]he  trier  of  fact”
then “proceeds to decide the ultimate question.”  Id., at 511. 
Throughout this whole back-and-forth process, the burden
of persuasion never shifts:  The “plaintiff at all times bears
the ultimate burden of persuasion” to prove all aspects of 
its  cause  of  action.  Ibid.  (internal  quotation  marks  omit-
ted).

The Court has explained that nearly “all presumptions” 
operate in this way.  Id., at 507.  The Federal Rules of Evi-
dence confirm the point too.  Rule 301, titled “Presumptions
in Civil Cases Generally,” provides that “the party against
whom a presumption is directed has the burden of produc-
ing evidence to rebut the presumption,” but “the burden of 
persuasion . . . remains on the party who had it originally.” 
Again, a burden of production may shift to the defendant, 
but never the burden of persuasion.

Title  VII  practice  offers  a  familiar  illustration  of  these 
principles.  There, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden
of  proving  that  his  employer  intentionally  discriminated 
against him because of his race or some other unlawful fac-
tor.  See  St.  Mary’s  Honor  Center,  509  U. S., at  511.    But 
because direct evidence of intentional discrimination can be