Reed v. Louisiana
Headline: Court refuses to review a Louisiana death-penalty case, leaving a man’s sentence in place despite concerns that where people live affects who is sentenced to death; Justice Breyer would have allowed review.
Holding: The Court declined to hear Marcus Reed’s challenge to his death sentence, leaving the sentence in place while Justice Breyer would have granted review to consider the death penalty’s constitutionality.
- Leaves a condemned person's sentence intact while the Court declines review.
- Highlights counties that sentence people to death at unusually high rates.
- One Justice urges the Court to reconsider whether the death penalty is constitutional.
Summary
Background
Marcus Dante Reed was sentenced to death in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a county that the opinion says has apparently sentenced more people to death per capita than any other county in the United States. Reed asked the Supreme Court to hear his challenge to that sentence. The Court denied review, and Justice Breyer wrote a dissent from that denial.
Reasoning
Justice Breyer explains that the way geography appears to determine who gets the death penalty is deeply troubling. He points to the arbitrary role that location plays in imposing death sentences and refers to other serious problems he has previously described in earlier opinions. He thinks these issues together justify asking the full Court to consider the basic question of whether the death penalty is constitutional. Breyer cites his earlier dissent in another case as part of the background for his view.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused to hear Reed’s challenge, his death sentence remains in place for now and the broader constitutional question about the death penalty goes unanswered by the Supreme Court. The opinion highlights that people in certain counties may face much higher chances of a death sentence based on where they live. Breyer’s dissent signals that at least one Justice believes the Court should take up this nationwide question.
Dissents or concurrances
This short dissent argues the Court should grant review and consider the death penalty’s constitutionality because of geographic disparities and other serious problems he has outlined elsewhere.
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?