Hawkins v. Texas
Headline: Court declines to review a Texas death-row case, denying relief and leaving the death sentence intact while two Justices argue the death penalty is always unconstitutional.
Holding: The Court refused to hear the challenge to a Texas death sentence, leaving the sentence in place while two Justices dissented, saying the death penalty is always unconstitutional.
- Leaves the Texas death sentence in place while the Court declines review.
- Allows the ACLU to file a supporting brief but does not change the outcome.
Summary
Background
Samuel Hawkins asked the Supreme Court to review his death sentence imposed by Texas. The motion of the American Civil Liberties Union and others to file a brief supporting review was granted. The Court denied the petition for review and later denied rehearing on November 30, 1981.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the Supreme Court would take the case to consider the challenge to the Texas death sentence and related constitutional claims. The Court declined to hear the case in the order provided; the text does not include a majority opinion explaining the reasons for that decision. What is clear from the document is only the procedural result: review was not granted.
Real world impact
Because the Court denied review, the Texas death sentence challenged by Hawkins remains in place for now and the lower-court ruling stands. The ACLU was allowed to file an amicus brief, but that filing did not lead the Court to accept the case. The denial of rehearing confirms that the Supreme Court did not change its decision in this matter at the times noted.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented from the denial. They stated they would have granted review and would vacate the death sentence, expressing their view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
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?