Civil and Human Rights

The Impact Of Supreme Court Decision On Florida’s Death Sentence

By Catherine Welch

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Florida’s death penalty system is unconstitutional. The court ruled that Florida gave too much authority to judges.

 

The 8-1 decision said Florida’s system is flawed because juries can only recommend the death penalty while judges make the final decision.

 

Florida, Alabama and Delaware are the three states where a unanimous jury decision is not required. Brianne Gorod, appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, said the Florida ruling puts other states on notice. 

 

“I think this decision will put any other states that might be tempted to leaving capital sentences to judges, that that’s not okay under our constitution,” said Gorod.

 

The Supreme Court ruling could trigger appeals from some of the 390 Florida inmates on death row. Florida State University legal scholar Mark Schlackman said it’s going to take a while to unravel the impact for people currently on Death Row, and whether it applies to just one case.

 

“There will be those who argue that it applies to Florida’s entire death row. And some will say cases that are similarly situated it would make sense it would apply to them,” said Schlackman. “So these issues have to be clarified.”

 

Statehouse leaders reacted to the ruling saying lawmakers will move quickly to overhaul the state’s death penalty system.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 29, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.