Patterson v. Patterson
The Court refused to stop the execution of a man who was 17 when he committed capital murder, denying his request for a stay, his petition for certiorari, and his habeas corpus petition without explanation.
Two dissenting opinions argued the Court should have paused the execution to reconsider its 1989 ruling allowing the death penalty for 17-year-olds, especially after the Court had just barred executing intellectually disabled defendants in a separate case.
How it got here: Patterson sought an emergency stay of execution, certiorari, and habeas relief after exhausting state court appeals; the Supreme Court denied all three.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Patterson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for a crime committed when he was 17 years old. He sought a stay of his scheduled execution, along with review of his case, arguing that executing someone for a crime committed as a minor should be reconsidered in light of evolving legal and international views on the practice.
The question before the Court
Should the Court have paused the execution of a man condemned for a crime committed at age 17, to reconsider whether executing juvenile offenders is constitutional?
Why it matters
The order let a state proceed with executing someone who was a minor at the time of his crime, while the dissents signaled that at least some justices were open to revisiting whether executing juvenile offenders violates the Constitution — a question the Court would take up formally a few years later.
What changes now
The denial cleared the way for the execution to proceed, since no majority opinion revisited the underlying constitutional question. The dissenters' call to reconsider the execution of juvenile offenders was not adopted at the time, though the issue of whether the Constitution permits executing offenders who were minors at the time of their crimes remained unresolved and open for future litigation.
What this does not decide
The order does not resolve whether executing offenders who were under 18 at the time of their crime violates the Constitution. The majority issued no opinion explaining its denial, and only the dissenting justices addressed that broader constitutional question.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Stevens
“Given the apparent consensus that exists among the States and in the international community against the execution of a capital sentence imposed on a juvenile offender, I think it would be appropriate for the Court to revisit the issue at the earliest opportunity.”Stevens argues the Court should reconsider whether executing juvenile offenders is constitutional.
Justice Stevens argued that executing someone for a crime committed at 17 violates the Eighth Amendment, relying on Justice Brennan's reasoning from a 1989 dissent. He pointed to growing consensus among states and internationally against executing juvenile offenders and argued the Court should have granted a stay to reconsider the issue at its next conference.
Dissent — Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer, argued that the Court's same-day decision barring execution of intellectually disabled defendants made it appropriate to revisit whether executing juvenile offenders is also unconstitutional. She joined Justice Stevens in dissenting from the denial of a stay.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court's order did not explain its reasoning; it simply denied the stay application referred by Justice Scalia, denied certiorari, and denied the habeas corpus petition without a written opinion from the majority.
- The dissenting justices relied on Justice Brennan's reasoning from a 1989 dissent, which argued that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment forbids executing someone for a crime committed before turning 18.
- The dissent pointed to a decision issued the same day barring execution of intellectually disabled defendants, arguing it showed the Court was willing to reconsider categorical limits on who can be executed, making it appropriate to revisit the juvenile question as well.
- The dissenting justices concluded that a stay should have been granted so the full Court could consider the juvenile-execution question at its next scheduled conference, rather than allowing the execution to proceed while that question remained unresolved.