The Illusory Quest to Execute Only “The Worst of the Worst”

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—explains how a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court allowing that state to proceed with its plan to execute Harry Franklin Phillips highlights America’s illusory quest to ensure that the death penalty be precisely targeted only at “the worst of the worst.” Sarat argues that it is now time to acknowledge that the attempt to exclude clear categories of offenders from death eligibility has failed to adequately protect the dignity of those prisoners, which Justice Anthony Kennedy viewed as a central part of the Eighth Amendment.

Read More

Haze v. Harrison

Docket: 18-7340

Opinion Date: June 8, 2020

Judge: Diana Jane Gribbon Motz

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that prison officials opened, copied, misdirected, and otherwise interfered with his mail to and from his lawyer. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The Fourth Circuit considered the Turner factors and concluded that they weighed in favor of plaintiff, holding that defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech by opening his mail outside of his presence. However, the court held that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's unreasonable search and seizure claim under the Fourth Amendment where, defendants have met their burden to show that their actions did not violate clearly established law. Finally, the court held that plaintiff forfeited his claims regarding his First Amendment right of access to the courts and his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to raise them in his informal brief. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

United States v. Van Donk

Dockets: 19-4588, 20-4167

Opinion Date: June 8, 2020

Judge: Albert Diaz

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a condition of supervised release requiring defendant to comply with the rules of his sex-offender treatment program, which ban him from viewing any materials that sexually arouse him. The court held that the ban is permissible under 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) and is not overbroad because the district court made an individualized assessment, based on the testimony of defendant's treatment provider, that it was necessary. Furthermore, it is enforced in a way that avoids the issues with which the vagueness doctrine is concerned, and it is not an impermissible delegation because only the district court will decide whether defendant violated his conditions of release.

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump

Docket: 19-1990

Opinion Date: June 8, 2020

Judge: Niemeyer

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Immigration Law

Plaintiffs alleged that Proclamation 9645, which imposed certain restrictions on the entry of individuals from eight countries, violates their rights under the Establishment Clause, as well as under other clauses of the Constitution, because it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate national security concerns and is motivated solely by anti-Muslim animus. The government filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a claim based mainly on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018), which reversed a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Proclamation 9645 that had been issued on facts that are essentially the same as those alleged here. The Hawaii Court held that the government had "set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review" and thus plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and held that the district court misunderstood the import of the Supreme Court's decision in Hawaii and the legal principles it applied. The court held that Proclamation 9645 restricts the entry of foreign nationals from specified countries, giving reasons for doing so that are related to national security, and it makes no reference to religion. In this case, although the district court agreed that the Mandel standard is controlling, it failed to apply the standard of review properly, moving past the face of the Proclamation to consider in its analysis external statements made by President Trump. The court proceeded beyond consideration of only the facially stated purposes of Proclamation 9645 and determined whether plaintiffs have alleged plausible constitutional claims under the rational basis standard of review. Under the rational basis standard, plaintiffs' constitutional claims failed because the Proclamation was plausibly related to the Government's stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. The court remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaints.