« No new grants, but lots of notable chatter on criminal cases in latest SCOTUS order list | Main | Recent Harvard Law Review issue covers prison abolition »
May 13, 2019
Is the latest SCOTUS sparring in capital cases only likely to get worse and worse?
The question in the title of this post is prompted by today's Supreme Court developments in older capital cases, some of which I missed when just blogging here about the morning order list. Specifically, I missed that Justice Alito penned a lenghty dissent to a stay in a capital case from Texas six week ago(!), which in turn prompted a four-page defense of the stay by Justice Kavanaugh. (This discussion can be found at this link following the original stay.) Adam Liptak summarizes all the action in the New York Times article headlined "Tempers Fraying, Justices Continue Debate on Executions." Here are excerpts:
As might be obvious by my question in the title of this post, I think this sparring could get even more heated in part because the reduced number of executions in recent years heighten the stakes (and litigation opportunities) around each execution.Several Supreme Court justices on Monday continued a heated debate on how to handle last-minute requests in death penalty cases, issuing a series of unusual opinions about actions the court had taken several weeks ago.
Continuing to fight those battles is an indication that feelings remain raw on a court that is increasingly divided over capital cases.
A guiding principle at the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer has said, is that “tomorrow is another day.” The court very rarely supplements its original rulings with later explanations and responses.
In one opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., explained why they had voted in March to stay the execution of Patrick H. Murphy, a Buddhist inmate in Texas whose request that his spiritual adviser accompany him to the death chamber had been denied though Christian and Muslim chaplains were allowed....
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, responded on Monday with a statement. The inmate’s delay in asserting his claim, Justice Alito wrote, should have justified letting his execution go forward....
In a footnote, Justice Alito continued a discussion of an even older case, from February, in which the court had allowed a Muslim inmate to be executed outside the presence of his Muslim imam although Christian chaplains were allowed. At the time, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court’s four liberal members, said the majority was “profoundly wrong.”...
In a third opinion on Monday, Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, wrote to “set the record straight” about why they had voted last month to allow the execution of an Alabama inmate, Christopher Lee Price, a move that had prompted an anguished middle-of-the-night dissent from Justice Breyer.
May 13, 2019 at 04:33 PM | Permalink