Darden v. Florida
Headline: Dismissed review in a Florida death-penalty case, the Court declined to decide the sentence’s constitutionality while two Justices would have overturned the death sentence.
Holding: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted; the Court declined to decide the merits of the constitutional challenge to the death sentence.
- Supreme Court declined to decide the constitutional question in this death-penalty case.
- Leaves the lower-court outcome in place for this particular death sentence.
- Two Justices reiterated that they would overturn the death sentence as unconstitutional.
Summary
Background
A person sentenced to death in Florida sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court after the case reached the Florida Supreme Court. Attorneys argued the case in late March 1977, and the Court issued its decision in April 1977. The dispute involved a death sentence that had been imposed and was under review by higher courts.
Reasoning
The central action by the Justices was procedural: the Court dismissed its own grant of review as improvidently granted, meaning the Court chose not to decide the constitutional questions presented. The opinion contains no full majority discussion of the merits; instead, the Court declined to go forward with a merits ruling in this case.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court dismissed its review and did not issue a merits ruling, the Court did not change the national legal rule on the death penalty in this opinion. The constitutional question raised in this case was left unresolved by the Court’s action, and the existing court outcomes remained in effect for this particular case.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices (Brennan and Marshall) dissented. They stated they adhere to the view that capital punishment is always prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution and would have set aside the death sentence in this case.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?