Focusing on the American iteration of the citizens’ jury approach, this chapter provides a critical appraisal employing the evaluative criteria introduced in chapter “Legitimacy in Practice: Measuring What Makes Deliberative Public Participation ‘Good’”. Citizens’ juries bring together a small, randomly selected body of lay participants to deliberate on policy issues with the aim of producing informed and balanced recommendations. While they can foster robust dialogue and encourage meaningful public engagement, this chapter argues that citizens’ juries face constraints around inclusiveness, representativeness, and the capacity to tackle complex or highly technical topics. Potential issues also arise concerning the time needed for thorough learning programs, especially when sponsors or organizers compress deliberations for logistical reasons. Moreover, the final recommendations from citizens’ juries often lack binding authority and can be disregarded by decision-makers. This chapter questions whether citizens’ juries reliably achieve input, procedural, and outcome legitimacy, given the substantial demands on participants, resources, and facilitators. Ultimately, this critique highlights the method’s mixed empirical record, urging further scrutiny of how citizens’ juries operate in practice and whether they can consistently yield meaningful policy impacts and democratic gains.