Lenhard v. Wolff
Headline: Court denies rehearing and refuses to delay a scheduled execution, allowing the inmate’s October 22, 1979 execution to proceed while review requests remain ungranted.
Holding: The Justice denied rehearing and refused to stay the scheduled execution, finding the papers would not persuade enough Justices to grant review or a stay.
- Refuses further delay, allowing the execution to proceed on October 22, 1979.
- Leaves the Court’s prior denial in place and refuses a stay pending review.
- Shows the rehearing papers lacked support to persuade enough Justices to grant review.
Summary
Background
A pair of men acting as "next friends" for prisoner Jesse Bishop asked a Justice of the Court to block his execution and to rehear the Court’s earlier denial. The Court had already denied a similar request on October 1, 1979, and officials rescheduled Bishop’s execution for October 22, 1979. On October 16, the same supporters filed a petition for rehearing and a new request to stay, or pause, the execution while they seek Supreme Court review.
Reasoning
The Justice considered whether the rehearing petition or a new stay should be granted so the Supreme Court could consider a request for review (a petition asking the Court to hear the case). After assuming the applicants’ procedural points in their favor, the Justice concluded the papers would not persuade the necessary number of Justices to grant review, to grant rehearing of the earlier denial, or to issue a stay while the rehearing petition was considered. Because of that lack of support, the Justice denied the rehearing request and the stay application.
Real world impact
The practical result is that the case will not receive a new delay from this Justice, and the scheduled execution may proceed as planned on October 22, 1979. This order addresses only the procedural request for rehearing and a pause; it does not decide the underlying guilt or sentence on the merits. The decision reflects that the moving papers lacked sufficient support among the Justices to change the Court’s earlier action.
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?