Policy

United States Supreme Court

In the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court found the application of the death penalty unconstitutional, but allowed executions to resume under revised laws four years later. Today, the Court often faces questions on the constitutionality of particular aspects of the death-penalty system.

Overview

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether the con­sti­tu­tion is being fol­lowed. States may be more pro­tec­tive of indi­vid­ual rights than required under the fed­er­al con­sti­tu­tion, but they can­not be less pro­tec­tive. In par­tic­u­lar, the Supreme Court is respon­si­ble for ensur­ing that state use of the death penal­ty adheres to our fun­da­men­tal rights. Court rul­ings can involve the meth­ods of exe­cu­tion used, the com­pe­ten­cy of defense coun­sel, the selec­tion of juries, the behav­ior of the pros­e­cu­tion, and many oth­er mat­ters pro­tect­ed by the right to due process.

In the ear­li­er his­to­ry of the coun­try, the Supreme Court left much of the prac­tice of the death penal­ty and oth­er pun­ish­ments to the states’ dis­cre­tion, rarely rul­ing on whether any prac­tice should be con­sid­ered cru­el and unusu­al. In recent decades, the Court has reg­u­lar­ly con­sid­ered mul­ti­ple cap­i­tal cas­es each term. Some of these cas­es arise from appeals of state rul­ings involv­ing the U.S. con­sti­tu­tion, oth­ers are result of fed­er­al deci­sions on both state and fed­er­al death penalty matters.

At Issue

The key ques­tion for the Supreme Court is whether the death penal­ty itself con­tin­ues to be con­sti­tu­tion­al in light of its rare use and its rejec­tion by large seg­ments of soci­ety. Recent rev­e­la­tions about the risks of exe­cut­ing inno­cent defen­dants, racial bias in its appli­ca­tion, and the lengthy time inmates spend on death row, has led soci­ety to rethink its sup­port of the death penal­ty. Some Justices have called for a com­pre­hen­sive review of the prac­tice. The make-up of the Court is like­ly to deter­mine when such a case might be con­sid­ered and how the Court will rule.

What DPIC Offers

DPIC has sum­maries of the impor­tant death penal­ty cas­es decid­ed by the Supreme Court in the mod­ern era. The opin­ions of indi­vid­ual Justices on the prac­tice of the death penal­ty in the U.S. are high­light­ed. Cases that the Court has decid­ed to hear but have not yet been argued are pre­viewed on the website.

News & Developments


News

Jan 12, 2026

Marking a Decade Since Hurst v. Florida

Today is the ten-year anniver­sary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Hurst v. Florida. Heralded as a water­shed rul­ing for cap­i­tal defen­dants, Hurst reaf­firmed the prin­ci­ple that the jury alone must find the facts nec­es­sary to con­demn a per­son to die — impli­cat­ing the death sen­tences of hun­dreds of pris­on­ers across three states. The Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury…

Read More

News

Jan 08, 2026

Georgia Court Halts Stacey Humphreys’ Execution to Weigh Clemency Board Member Conflict of Interest

On December 29, 2025, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney issued an order block­ing the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole (GBPP) from resched­ul­ing a clemen­cy hear­ing and set­ting a new exe­cu­tion date for Stacey Humphreys. Two weeks ear­li­er, on December 15th the GBPP put Mr. Humphreys’ December 16th clemen­cy hear­ing on hold​“indef­i­nite­ly,” leav­ing in lim­bo the sta­tus of his exe­cu­tion, sched­uled for the fol­low­ing day. Judge McBurney issued the stay,…

Read More

News

Dec 19, 2025

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Mississippi Death Penalty Case Alleging Race Based Jury Discrimination

The U.S Supreme Court announced on December 15, 2025, that it will hear the appeal of Mississippi death-sen­­tenced pris­on­er Terry Pitchford, who has argued his con­sti­tu­tion­al rights were vio­lat­ed because of race dis­crim­i­na­tion dur­ing jury selec­tion. Mr. Pitchford was sen­tenced to death near­ly two decades ago for his role in the shoot­ing death of Reuben Britt. At the cen­ter of Mr. Pitchford’s case is Doug Evans, a Mississippi dis­trict attor­ney whose con­duct has drawn…

Read More

News

Dec 16, 2025

Georgia Parole Board Postpones Stacey Humphreys’ Execution Amid Allegations of Extreme Juror Misconduct” and Parole Board Conflicts of Interest

On December 15, 2025, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole put a hold on the exe­cu­tion of Stacey Humphreys and post­poned his clemen­cy hear­ing, orig­i­nal­ly sched­uled for December 16,​“indef­i­nite­ly.” Mr. Humphreys was to be exe­cut­ed December 17 — despite claims that his tri­al was taint­ed by what three Supreme Court jus­tices described as​“extreme juror mis­con­duct.” He was the first per­son sched­uled for exe­cu­tion in Georgia in 2025. Last week, Mr. Humphreys’ attorneys…

Read More

News

Oct 27, 2025

Alabama Execution Witnesses Report Violent Thrashing” of Prisoner and More Than 225 Agonized Breaths” in Nitrogen Gas Execution

On October 23, 2025, Alabama exe­cut­ed Anthony Boyd, despite his unwa­ver­ing claim of inno­cence and a fiery dis­sent authored by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, renew­ing the seri­ous con­cerns that have been con­sis­tent­ly raised about the state’s use of nitro­gen gas. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dis­sent­ed from the Court’s October 23, 2025, denial of a stay of exe­cu­tion, writ­ing that Alabama’s use of nitro­gen gas​“vio­lates the Constitution…

Read More