Marquez v. Texas

Background

A large group of cases coming from many state and federal courts challenged death sentences imposed on people convicted of serious crimes. The Supreme Court was asked to review those appeals, but the Court formally declined to take up the cases, with the entry “Certiorari denied” recorded for these dockets.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Justices should hear these challenges and consider whether the death penalty violates constitutional protections against cruel punishment. The available text shows the Court chose not to review the cases and therefore did not decide the underlying constitutional question. Two Justices—joined in a short dissent—said they would have granted review and would have vacated the death sentences, reiterating their view that capital punishment always violates the Constitution and citing earlier opinions that express that position.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to review, the state convictions and death sentences named in these dockets remain in effect for now. The entry denying review is not a decision on the merits of whether the death penalty is constitutional, so the larger legal question remains unresolved by this action and could be raised again in future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall dissented from the denial of review. They stated they would have granted review and vacated the death sentences, on the ground that the death penalty is always cruel and unusual punishment.