Foster v. Florida

Background

Charles Foster is a man sentenced to death in Florida in 1975 who has spent more than 27 years under that sentence. Over the decades his case produced stays, resentencings, and appellate rulings finding sentencing errors; he was most recently resentenced in 1993. Foster asked the Supreme Court to decide whether executing him after such lengthy delay would violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

Reasoning

The Court declined to hear Foster’s petition and denied review, a procedural decision that does not decide the constitutional question on the merits. Justice Stevens emphasized that denial of review is not a ruling on the merits. Justice Thomas joined a separate opinion saying nothing in the Court’s law has changed and criticizing reliance on foreign courts. Justice Breyer dissented from the denial and argued the extraordinary length of Foster’s confinement and repeated procedural errors could make execution cruel and unusual and merited the Court’s review.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, the Florida court’s rulings and Foster’s death sentence remain in place for now. The denial does not settle whether long delays on death row violate the Eighth Amendment and leaves open the possibility that the issue could reach the Court again. Justice Breyer’s dissent highlights a split in views among the Justices about whether decades-long delay can itself be unconstitutional.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring statement opposing review and criticizing use of foreign decisions; Justice Breyer would have granted review, stressing the severity of a 27-year delay on death row.