Johnson v. Florida
Headline: Court denies review of numerous state death-penalty cases, leaving those death sentences untouched for now while two Justices argue the death penalty is always unconstitutional.
Holding: The Court refused to review numerous state court death sentences, effectively leaving those executions intact, while two Justices dissented and argued the death penalty is always cruel and unusual and should be vacated.
- Leaves multiple state death sentences undisturbed for now.
- Shows two Justices favor a nationwide ban on capital punishment.
- Keeps constitutional question unresolved at the Supreme Court level.
Summary
Background
A group of appeals challenged death sentences handed down by state courts in several states, including Florida, Arizona, Georgia, California, Tennessee, and Nebraska. The people facing execution asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their cases. The Court’s order in this excerpt simply states that it denied review of those appeals.
Reasoning
The main question presented was whether the Supreme Court should overturn those state death sentences on constitutional grounds. The short order does not set out the majority’s reasons for denying review. Two Justices, Brennan and Marshall, wrote a dissent saying they adhere to their long-held view that the death penalty is always "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and that they would have granted review and vacated the sentences. The dissent cites their prior position, including reference to Gregg v. Georgia.
Real world impact
Because the Court declined to take these cases, the state-court death sentences named in the order remain undisturbed by this Supreme Court action. The order is not a decision on the underlying constitutional claim about the death penalty itself. The dissent shows that at least two Justices would have intervened to stop these sentences, so the legal dispute about the constitutionality of capital punishment could continue in other cases.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall dissented from the denial of review. They would have granted review and vacated the death sentences, reaffirming their view that the Constitution forbids the death penalty in all circumstances.
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?