The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Judge Tatel's Vision of the Shadow Docket From Inside the Penumbra
"The Court, we were told, 'would really like us to act tonight'—and, if possible, 'within an hour.'"
Judge David Tatel's new book, fittingly titled Vision, has received a lot of press for its criticism of the Roberts Court. But much of the book focuses on insights into judging. I've only started reading the book, but I appreciated his tick-tock account of a July 2020 capital case. Daniel Lee Lewis's case rocketed from the District Court to the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court in the span of roughly 24 hours. Apparently, the Supreme Court can bark at lower court judges when they take too long!
Here is a snippet of the chronology:
But everything changed at 10:30 a.m. when I received an email from court staff reporting that a district court judge had just blocked the first of several executions scheduled by the Trump administration. The government had planned to execute a convicted murderer, Daniel Lewis Lee, by lethal injection that very afternoon at the federal death chamber in Terre Haute, Indiana. But the district court had temporarily halted the execution, and our staff anticipated that the Justice Department would quickly ask us to reverse the district court and let the execution proceed. . . .
At 11:52 a.m. the Justice Department informed my court that, as anticipated, the government wanted us to immediately reverse the order blocking Lee's execution so it could move ahead as planned. Now it was up to our three-judge panel—two other D.C. Circuit judges and me—to review the district court's ruling and decide whether Lee would live or die that very day. Ordinarily, the appellate process takes many months, if not longer. . . . Nevertheless, respecting the government's request for speed, we ordered Lee's lawyers to respond by 5:15 p.m. and the government to reply by 7 p.m. . . .
When the briefs arrived, my law clerk read them aloud to me over Zoom, going as fast as possible and stopping only for sips of tea to save her voice. . . . Two hours and hundreds of pages later, I concluded that there was nothing unlawful about the district court's order delaying Lee's execution. . . .
My two colleagues, Judges Thomas Griffith and Patricia Millett, agreed. If you've become accustomed to viewing judges as politicians in robes, you might think it relevant that Judge Griffith was appointed by a Republican president (George W. Bush) and Judge Millett by a Democrat (Barack Obama). But they're judges, not politicians, and both saw what I (appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton) saw: a serious constitutional claim, a thoughtful district court order, and no legal basis to overturn it. . . .
My law clerk and I began drafting an opinion, she on her desktop, me on my black Braille computer. The size of a keyboard, it has six rectangular Braille buttons and connects to an earphone that allows me to hear the words as I type them. As soon as we had a draft, I sent it to Judges Griffith and Millett for their input. We were exchanging edits and refining the draft when, at 9:51 that evening, we received word from the Supreme Court that the justices were growing impatient. The Court, we were told, "would really like us to act tonight"—and, if possible, "within an hour." That kind of pressure was highly unusual, but, recognizing the Supreme Court's higher authority, we did our best to comply. At 11:24 p.m., we released our opinion rejecting the government's request to proceed with the execution. The case, we explained, involved "novel and difficult constitutional questions" that required "further factual and legal development." We then scheduled all remaining briefing to occur within the next ten days, far faster than usual. Fewer than three hours later, around 2 a.m., the Supreme Court voted 5–4 to reverse us. The Court's order was unsigned, but the names of those who approved Lee's immediate execution were obvious because all four justices who objected signed their names to a dissent. The five in the majority were the Court's purported conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. . . .
Fewer than six hours later, at 8:07 a.m., the government executed Daniel Lewis Lee.
What a fascinating and riveting account. Tatel writes very well.
I've long suspected that the Supreme Court prods the lower courts when an urgent case is not moving quickly enough on the shadow docket. But this is the first time I've seen a judge confirm it.
For those curious, Tatel does not discuss his service with then-Judge Kavanaugh.
***
I've been very critical of Supreme Court Justices who sign lucrative contracts to write memoirs immediately upon their confirmation. They would be much better off living a full life, and then reflecting on it. There is much to study and praise in Judge Tatel's decades on the bench. And I am reasonably confident that he did not receive a seven-figure advance.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, so “riveting” to hear confirmation of Justice Alito’s and the conservative’s insatiable, impatient bloodlust. I’m sure your personal titillation is exactly what Judge Tatel was shooting for when he wrote that passage - not, say, a thoughtful contemplation on how eagerly and perfunctorily his ideas were dismissed and a person’s life extinguished. Thank you for distorting Judge Tatel’s words through the lens of a gleeful Federalist fanboy - as I am sure that you noticed in your reading that this was exactly what he had hoped for. Through the looking glass indeed!
Exactly right. It was professionally irresponsible for the five Justices to order the guy executed, no matter what the arguments against it. And they wanted him dead right away. Josh does not pick up on this.
Daniel Lee Lewis had been on death row for 21 years. Originally convicted of 3 different murders as part of a plot to create a white ethnostate in 1999.
He was scheduled to be executed on July 13, 2020. After 21 years on death row. But suddenly, magically, right on that date "unresolved legal issues" were discovered?
He was the first person executed by the US federal government since 2003.
Let's be honest here. You don't have "unresolved legal issues" suddenly pop up, after 21 years, right on the date of the execution.
If you oppose the death penalty, that's fine. If there are unresolved legal issues, you bring them in a timely manner. This "we're going to wait till the last possible second, THEN issue the appeal, so we're going to run out the clock some more" strategy needed to be shot down.
They could have waited a week, looked up the authority for untimely arguments being waived (sometimes they are not), and issued a real decision.
The proper time to place this appeal was the week, or month, or year before the execution. Not literally the day of it.
You and I both know this appeal was almost certainly written and waiting on the lawyer’s desk for at least a week (likely much longer), just waiting to be filed at the last possible moment, with the primary purpose of running out the clock longer.
You and I both know that if this legal tactic was successful at buying another week or two (potentially more), then every other lawyer with a federal death row place would likely try to replicate it.
This tactic needed to be shot down, otherwise it would be abused. More than enough time was available for appeals. 21 years. If there were serious issues that the lawyers honestly thought would reverse the case, then they should have (and would have) been brought sooner.
What are you talking about, Armchair? Last minute appeals are common and always have been during the past several decades at least.
Last minute appeals like this should be shot down rapidly and not entertained, unless there is a real change in circumstance that has occurred.
To do as people suggest and "just give a week to consider the item" just means that once a week ((or two...or three, with rescheduling everything) has gone by, there will magically be another appeal. Which of course will require another week (or month) to really go over.
What's the rush? No one's life has ever been made better because someone else was executed. To the contrary, we'll never know how many have been wrongfully executed for crimes they didn't commit. Waiting that extra year, or month, or week, or day could have made all the difference. But at least the right-wingers on the SCOTUS can keep satisfying their bloodlust. (How many Catholics in that group, by the way? I wonder what Jesus would say about the perceived need to conduct more and quicker executions.)
21 years.... That's not a rush.
That's just a delay forever.
A professor, in his role as fraudulent supporter of using the power of government against Trump, a political opponent, wrote an article on how The People need to see a timely prosecution, so can’t wait until after the election. Many here pondered and agreed.
“But this is a life, that is not!”
The only difference in these cases are that different numbers of people will be killed in military actions based on who wins. Many times more.
So go ahead and admit to using situational ethics, the high valuation of a philosophical principle when it supports your already decided-upon position, and the pooh poohing of it when it gets in the way of a different one.
I don’t know enough about this case to know if the issues were legitimate or not. And Biden should win to keep killing Russian invaders of Europe, whose troops, many pressed into service, are arguably less guilty than this dude. Which we are all fine with.
Another contribution to the moronic catalogue of Trump martyrology.
Another contribution to the moronic history of people honestly admitting they have no argument, by resorting to insults.
The argument is so obvious I didn't think it needed to be made.
I hope Trump loses. I have made that clear. (And why is a better reason than most of you, some nebulous other team fear.)
But it is wrong to try to use the power of government against a political enemy, to get him, so you can hold the power instead. This is very different from fighting him to a standstill through normal political processes, as was done to stifle him during his term.
You are out to get him, using the investigatory and prosecutory power of government, against a political opponent, because he’s a political opponent.
Sheer numbers of initiatives demonstrate this. Several initiatives, severed from constituional prohibitions against using them against political opponents, deliberately (impeachments) were gleefully admited to be doing so. And when some suggested he may pardon himself, you gleefully sent info down to the states "just in case". And Congress lied they needed to pry into his papers for legislative purposes, when everyone knew it was so they could leak it, which was done.
It was done for a legislative purpose. There was actual legislation. They weren't leaked, they were released, after a Supreme Court decision paving the way.
So full disclosure, I’m quite against the death penalty. I think it is a moral abomination.
But the last minute adjudication of claims isn’t good, and I don’t blame conservative and pro-death penalty justices for hating it and wanting to push back on it.
The way the system should work is that capital defendants get excellent lawyers who can research all the stuff that becomes the fodder of last minute appeals the first time around. And they should also get excellent habeas counsel who can further pursue anything trial counsel missed. The idea should be to have lots of due process, but to have it at the trial, immediate appeal, and habeas level.
Instead, because the death penalty engenders a lot of moral opposition (from people like me), death penalty legal clinics get lots of funding. But they pick up cases late, on habeas. And their donors especially like the riveting tales of saving someone who was literally minutes away from facing the needle.
Plus, any lawyer would feel an ethical obligation to do anything possible to save their client’s life even if it has only a 0.01% chance, or even just to lengthen your client’s life. So we get tons of last minute habeas litigation. Courts staying up at night. Rehashed claims. Phony claims of innocence by clearly guilty defendants. Etc.
It’s not a good way to run a railroad.
Now, TBC, I think the reform should include the first half of the process- I think there should be an elite, well compensated corps of government lawyers to represent every defendant in America charged with a death penalty crime or sentenced to death. But at the same time, no, when you are litigating at the last minute of a 21 year old case, the cause for skepticism is immense and this shouldn’t be when capital cases are litigated.
My impression is that in most death penalty jurisdictions, this is pretty much the case.
I'd say it is closer to "some". We still have plenty of cases in the big death penalty states in the south with allegations of sleeping lawyers, inebriated lawyers, serious ineffective assistance problems, etc.
But certainly in a number of other states and at the federal level, the capital case representation is top notch.
As I mentioned above, this wasn't the typical 11th hour oh-we-got-a-witness-to-recant or counsel-forgot-to-tell-the-jury-at-the-punishment-phase-that-he-was-dropped-on-his-head-four-times-rather-than-three. This was a method of execution lawsuit. And it was brought a year in advance of the execution, when the method was announced. So on the one hand it's not an egregious instance of delaying until the last second and then throwing a hail mary. On the other, I don't think much of "He might suffer pain for a few seconds before he dies" line of cases, either. The 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, not any and all suffering.
"This was a method of execution lawsuit"
A method that had been used over 100 times by the various states, without an issue. And you think the SCOTUS didn't see any appeals from any of those cases on the method?
Both are true. The last-day appeal was doubtless ready well before and was held until the last day.
SCOTUS could have waited a week out of respect for the Appellate panel.
Does it not penetrate your Cranium that endless Execution delays are a punishment in themselves? I'd prefer speedy appeals and punishment (I think that's in the Constitution somewheres) Charles Gutieau was executed 9 months after President Garfield succumbed to his wounds (his Doctor's wounds more accurately) The guy who shot at FDR, killing the Chicago Mayor instead was executed 5 weeks after the shooting.
Those crazy Japanese have it right, they still use hanging, and don't let the condemned know until an hour or so before.
If we can't have speedy sentences, the present system is probably second best, a decades long prison sentence, TNTC close calls, and then you still get executed at the end.
Frank
Accusing the DC Circuit if bad faith needs more than the timing. The appellate court had little to do with the timing and seems to think there was something there.
Maybe they were wrong - the Court reversed then after all. But your accusations go well beyond that.
I don’t know the legal issue that popped up and neither do you.
Strawman, ignored.
So your let’s be honest here…how could the judges in good faith find otherwise under your formulation?
And since they did find otherwise…what does that mean about them?
It is hard to see other than an accusation of bad faith in your comment above.
Why don’t you answer the actual criticism, that appeals don’t suddenly pop up on the literal last day after 21 years?
Because you have no rebuttal. You are arguing in bad faith.
They may hold onto legitimate issues for the last day, to hold off execution. It isn't necessarily just throwing the kitchen sink at it.
The “actual criticism” is based on a misunderstanding of the procedural situation. Lee (and three others) was not challenging his guilt or sentencing. He was challenging the manner of execution. He could not have raised such a challenge during the 21 intervening years, because the manner of execution that he was challenging was not set until mid-2019. And Lee and the others immediately moved to challenge it at the time.
(Also, FTR, it's Daniel Lewis Lee, not Daniel Lee Lewis.)
To accuse another of ignorance without certainty is uncharitable, and to comment in ignorance oneself violates the rule about remaining silent lest one remove all doubt.
The opinion and dissents are two clicks away and short enough to grasp, even at modern attention span. In short, dueling experts claiming the new drug in use for this lethal injection causes a pulmonary edema which may or may not be prior to loss of consciousness.
The first dissent lays out some history of the case showing that a number of issues, including procedural challenges to the APA, were heard the year prior. That chain of events does allow for speculation as to why this issue was saved to try to make the phone ring at the last minute.
Ultimately those opposed to the death penalty were opposed, mostly for reasons argued often; the majority was not so opposed and there was an end on it.
Yes I an combo of lazy and busy today.
But no Armchair doesn’t know the issue. His argument is based purely on the timing. Also he doesn’t read much.
I don’t like the death penalty but agree the methodology attacks are pretty Constitutionally weak.
But that is no excuse for Justices to not do their work, not for Armchair to presume bad faith.
Keep the strawman strong.
It's so easy to win arguments when you can tell your opponent what their argument is and how they think.
If you aren't inferring that the DC Circuit acted in bad faith, then you must admit that it recognized at least arguably legitimate issues with the execution. What's the alternative? And that being the case, SCOTUS should have taken the time to deal with their issues, even if they ultimately disagree and allow the execution to proceed.
I'm "inferring" that one of Sarcastr0's typical tactics is to strawman and tell other people what they are thinking, in order to shoot it down.
And I'm trying to point out to you that in this case there was no straw man, he was making a logical inference from your comment. One of your typical tactics is attacking a disagreeing commenter, rather than responding to what was actually written.
"I don’t know the legal issue that popped up and neither do you."
You could read the opinions. Or just read wikipedia.
It was a BS appeal alleging that pentobarbital, already used for a decade, caused pain.
You'd rather accuse armchair of bad faith though while defending lawyer's bad faith.
Bob,
The lawyers were doing their job. The circuit judge and the panel did theirs in an expeditious manner.
Move along,; there's nothing to see here.
These cases were kind of a big deal when they happened. I followed them then, and of course the opinions are freely available if you want to inform yourself before opining. Kind of revealing that you didn’t feel the need…
I agree with you. The OP presents no evidence or reasons why the DC circuit may have acted in bad faith.
"professionally irresponsible"
This is what you are defending.
"They then questioned Nancy Mueller's 8-year-old daughter, Sarah Elizabeth Powell, about where they could find the cash, guns, and ammunition, forcing her to talk by shocking her with an electric cattle prod."
"They then placed plastic bags over their heads and sealed the bags with duct tape, suffocating them to death." wikipedia
It's the process at issue, not the petitioner.
The guy had already received decades of time he wasn’t entitled to, and arguments against it were risible. What’s irresponsible about rejecting them?
No irresponsibility, if we accept your assertion that the arguments were risible.
If hi defense hadn't themselves thought that, they'd have filed sooner
Yeah, the "insatiable, impatient bloodlust" to execute a convicted murderer and neo-nazi who, in 1996, tortured an eight year old girl with a cattle prod, murdered her and her parents by duct taping plastic bags over their heads, and then dumped their bodies in a swamp.
GTFO
Yes, it's completely ridiculous to demand the state act in a more moral manner than a sociopathic murderer.
How did the state fail to act morally?
Josh has “been very critical of Supreme Court Justices who sign lucrative contracts to write memoirs immediately upon their confirmation.” But has he ever been in the least critical of Clarence for pocketing the equivalent of more then $4M in “gifts” from his mega-wealthy friends or of Sam for among so many things his Christian Nationalist biases? I don’t think so, and for that reason and many more Josh’s ethics opinions count for very little with me.
"The case, we explained, involved "novel and difficult constitutional questions" that required "further factual and legal development.""
And the majority of the Court obviously thought it didn't.
True. And so goes the law. Whatever the issue was.
But 3 hours for thinking seems unorthodox to me.
The defense could have given them five weeks to think about it if they'd filed five weeks sooner. They didn't, because they knew up front the argument was a loser, and would have been rejected in those five weeks, resulting in no delay.
I have a great deal of sympathy for actual innocence arguments. I have significant sympathy for procedural arguments, because the procedure is there to discover guilt/innocence. So procedural arguments are second hand innocence arguments.
I have basically no sympathy for method of execution arguments. I've been through chemo. I've had a dislocated and broken ankle treated on an emergency basis without anesthesia. I, innocent of any crime of violence, have gone through much worse than this guy faced, and without complaint.
So he can just suck it up.
They filed a year before.
"I've been very critical of Supreme Court Justices who sign lucrative contracts to write memoirs immediately upon their confirmation. They would be much better off living a full life, and then reflecting on it."
There are some good reasons to criticize these book deals. One of them is not, "These poor, naive children on our nation's highest court need life advice from a third-tier law professor." Whats next, tips for Taylor Swift on handling fame?
" advice from a third-tier law professor."
Why did you raise Josh's tier by two notches?
That's cold.
For you losers who missed the Solar Eclipse in April (and if you weren't in the path of Totality you missed it) the Penumbra sucks, (heard Howard Stern dissing Eclipses, saying he's seen lots of them and that you can hardly notice them, he's talking about Partial Eclipses, when you see a Total Solar Eclipse for the first time, you understand now why you came this way.....
Next US Total Solar won't be until 2044, when Sleepy Joe will be Centenarian Joe (yeah right, I'm not sure if he's alive today) Only Eclipse in a halfway civilized place (like I'm gonna go to Libya or Somalia) is Australia, July 2028, Winter there. Technically there are 2 in Europe, but one only passes over Gibraltar, the other a small swath of France.
Take it from Frankie, don't settle on the Penumbra, it's Umbra or bust.
Frank "Eclipse Glasses? We don't need no stinkin Eclipse Glasses!"
Daniel Day Lewis was Executed?!!?!?!?!?!?!
I can see for his performance in "Stars & Bars" (Columbia 1988)
but then we'd have missed out on "My Left Foot" "Last of the Mohicans" "Im Namens des Vaters"(saw that one in Germany), "Gangs of New York", "There will be Blood" "Lincoln"(best villain of all time) it's enough to change my mind about Capital Punishment
Oh wait,
Daniel LEE Lewis?
Never mind (HT E. Litella)
Frank
Here's an interview published yesterday with the Judge.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/d-c-circuits-david-tatel-pairs-judging-blindness-in-memoir
So, let me start with this- actually, a reasonable post. For once, Blackman has a more reasonable post than Adler. For those who remember, Adler had a somewhat .... intemperate post ... based on reporting about the book before it was released. As always, it's best to actually see the source material before staking too firm of a position.
Now, the necessary caveat.
"I've been very critical of Supreme Court Justices who sign lucrative contracts to write memoirs immediately upon their confirmation."
Really? Here's the problem. You don't have any credibility on this issue. I have been mentioning this in the comments for a while. The only time you consistently bring this up is to try to draw attention away from the other ethical issues that people are concerned about.
FWIW, the large money given to Justices for book deals when they hit the bench (Gorsuch, Barnett, and Jackson all received massive advances) is worrying, and I would add that any pressure by a Justice to have people buy their books is also concerning (Sotomayor).
But these are all known and disclosed. However, instead of looking at the very real concerns people have been raising about the massive (and undisclosed) gifts to Justices, you are trying to obfuscate the issue by conflating it with the very-well known (AND DISCLOSED! AND ALLOWED!) book deals. Even worse, you poured through Jackson's disclosures to make the Beyonce tickets "a thing," and didn't bother to note that none of the other Justices bother to disclose any gifts.
Ugh. Look, I happen to agree that we need major overhaul in this area, and I would agree that book deals should be part of it. But you are the last person on earth to be discussing this.
Why is it worrying?
Justices have been writing books since the founding, and writing has always been relatively lucrative.
Plus publishers today are public corporations and audited, and it's very unlikely they could be used as conduits for bribery.
There is nothing unseemly about money. There is nothing virtuous about leaving the justices just scraping by.
"Why is it worrying?"
Well, the issue that I see is that we are increasingly seeing millions of dollars given out in book deals to newly-appointed Justices.
For example, the Barnett deal (two million) was negotiated by the Javelin Group with Sentinel. It's not exactly a secret that some conservatives have "cashed out" with book deals, and that the books are purchased in bulk.
But this applies equally to Jackson, who also made a lot of money on a book deal as well.
Again, I'm not saying that Justices shouldn't write books. Scalia and Garner's Reading Law (for example) is a genuinely good book.
But this is something that needs to be looked at a little more carefully. Maybe the public disclosure is sufficient. I would appreciate a more thorough review of the issues.
"There is nothing virtuous about leaving the justices just scraping by."
The salary for a Supreme Court Justice is $298,500, and for the Chief it's $312,200. That's not getting mega-rich, but it's also not "scraping by." If that is scraping by, then we have more serious issues to worry about.
But sure, I wouldn't mind increasing those salaries ... so long as there are real ethical reform attached.
I'm an opponent of the death penalty.
I understand it is now constitutionally accepted. Nonetheless, the federal government had only executed three (one of them Timothy McVeigh) people since the early 1960s.
There was an obligation to carefully handle the process if the Trump Justice Department was going to execute 13 people.
The Supreme Court did not do so. It was particularly egregious how it handled the final executions, rushing them along, apparently to make sure the Biden Administration would not stop them.
The lower courts in the period cited by OP were not delaying for the sake of delay. The court of appeals put in place a sped-up appeal that would have taken less than a month.
The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, mid-summer, swooped in. It at least -- unlike regarding multiple other concerns cited later by Breyer & Sotomayor -- did not simply act without explanation.
The Trump Administration had four years. There was time for the Supreme Court to give a full review of the multiple issues that arose, and still provide a chance to execute people.
One blog allegedly supportive of criminal justice reform handwaved these concerns. I grant I was appalled at the time by this approach.
Oh, and one comment about the substance (re: the death penalty).
I happen to think that we shouldn't have the death penalty, but that's a decision for the political process- the Constitution doesn't prohibit it (in fact, it explicitly mentions it).
I think that Judge Kozinski* was correct (although people made fun of it at the time by taking the excerpts) in 2014 when he wrote a dissent from rehearing en banc in Wood v. Ryan.
"Whatever happens to Wood, the attacks will not stop and for a simple reason: The enterprise is flawed. Using drugs meant for individuals with medical needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of executions by making them look serene and peaceful—like something any one of us might experience in our final moments. But executions are, in fact, nothing like that. They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should it. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf. ...
Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding human blood. If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn't be carrying out executions at all.
While I believe the state should and will prevail in this case, I don't understand why the game is worth the candle. A tremendous number of taxpayer dollars have gone into defending a procedure that is inherently flawed and ultimately doomed to failure. If the state wishes to continue carrying out executions, it would be better to own up that using drugs is a mistake and come up with something that will work, instead."
He is saying the quiet part out loud. Stop wasting time with lethal drugs. If you want the state to execute people, you shouldn't be monkeying around with the mechanics of death. Acknowledge that no procedure is perfect, that at some point an innocent person will die (just like innocent people are incarcerated for decades) and that we are choosing to do this.
Or stop doing it. But that's for the people to decide. Stop making the courts engage in this endless and fruitless process that is a waste of time and money.
We see this in the exchange above. A district court and the COA wasted so much time going through the motions and analyzing the issues, for no reason, because five members of SCOTUS were going to give the go-ahead anyway.
*He was a great legal mind and writer, but I don't think I need to state that this does not excuse his personal behavior that led to his resignation.
Justice Sotomayor referenced his opinion when she dissented in Glossip v. Gross. She suggested the firing squad would be better for the defendants overall:
"there is evidence to suggest that the firing squad is significantly more reliable than other methods, including lethal injection using the various combinations of drugs thus far developed"
Society doesn't like the firing squad, however, basically because it is so blunt. Areas with a Church of Latter Day Saints influence have it as an option partially for religious reasons.
It also was a means used by the military to execute, which probably turned off civilian authorities. But, other methods leave a lot to be desired. The first attempt with nitrogen gas suggests it was not the panacea that some promoters said it might be.
To be perfectly honest, I think that death penalty opponents and advocates would be better off calling a truce in the courts, and allowing the death penalty to proceed - including with the use of methods that aren't all warm and fuzzy (such as firing squads or even, yes, the guillotine).
The problem with the death penalty is that people can argue about it abstractly, but it's fairly rare, never happens in any temporal proximity to the crime, and people assume that it's being taken care of by the courts.
This needs to be resolved by the people and the elected branches. If you like it, great. If you don't, great. But this should be an actual public debate, not a procedural nightmare in the court system.
(I happen to think that if the death penalty were more prominent, it might lead to its abolition. Which I want. But that's for the people to choose, not me. And not the judiciary.)
The people have had a debate in recent decades.
Multiple states have decided to end the death penalty. The attorney general in Oklahoma, one of the handful with actual executions these days, has shown some concern about how it was carried out.
People voted for Trump & he has expressed his support of the death penalty. People voted for Biden, who expressed his opposition.
Method of execution claims have been losers. OTOH, multiple capital cases — if not as many as fiction wants us to believe — have a bunch of other problems. Regularly, they lead to people being taken off death row.
It seems unethical for defense attorneys to waive appeals there. The people on death row rarely “volunteer.”
If they want, as a few do, they can stop the appeals with a minimum oversight remaining since the state should not execute if there is an extremely apparent problem present.
Supreme Court book watch.
I checked Amazon and Gorsuch's book (with Janie Nitze) is available in August. Jackson's book in September.
Kavanaugh and Barrett's books are still pending.
Tatel’s protests that the members of his panel weren’t “politicians in robes” begs disingenuity. Of course, he’s a Clinton nominee. Equally important, he was confirmed by a Senate dominated by Democrats 57-43. And since stepping down from the bench, Tatel has been on a well-publicized campaign criticizing the current Supreme Court.
His colleague Patricia Millett was originally nominated by Barack Obama to the 4th circuit in 2009. She was confirmed by an even more heavily Democratic Senate (59-41). In 2013, when Obama nominated Millett to the D.C. circuit, the Democrat’s strength in the Senate had dropped to 55-45, and Millett’s nomination was controversial. Her nomination was filibustered, so Harry Reid invoked the so-called nuclear option to insure that Millett would sit on the D.C. circuit.
Apparently, Judge Millett is so much not a “politician in robes” that her elevation to our nation’s most important intermediate appeals court triggered the Senate’s abandonment of the judicial filibuster.
And then there’s Thomas Griffith. Yes, he was nominated by George W. Bush. But Griffith was Bush’s second choice for this seat: Miguel Estrada had been filibustered continuously for the previous two years during a period when the partisan balance in the Senate was almost even. Griffith was the compromise replacement candidate, selected as part of the so-called Gang of 14 settlement on judicial confirmations.
But Progressive extremists continued to fight every Bush judicial nomination. Griffith was eventually confirmed a year later by a bipartisan vote of 73-24, including yeas from both Joe Biden and Barack Obama. On the bench, he’s been somewhat moderate. But probably more telling, he waited until only 45 days after Joe Biden’s inauguration to retire.
And then there’s the action in the district court. The prison where Lewis was to be executed is in Indiana, which is the jurisdiction of the 7th circuit. But because Lewis would represent the first time the federal government had put a condemned inmate to death in 20 years, activists were litigating almost every conceivable objection to the death penalty, always in the most favorable forums. The appeal Tatel’s panel heard involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the lethal injection method from the chambers of now-infamous Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Maybe when an entire life is spent surrounded by so many like-minded people, it’s hard not to succumb to some form of ideological (or even social or biological) endogamy. If so, then letting those same people routinely wield life-and-death power over millions of Americans is a recipe for disaster.
"Tatel’s protests that the members of his panel weren’t “politicians in robes” begs disingenuity."
I don't even know what that means. But putting aside all of your overblown rhetoric that reduces all judges to either (1) Democrats, (2) Not Republican Enough and therefore a Democrat, or (3) Good Because they Reach the Conclusion I want them Too, the following two things can be true-
1. Death penalty litigation is just a constant annoying process, and it sucks. Because lawyers (good lawyers, usually) are doing their best within the system to use the procedures they have in order to help their clients. As I wrote above, we need to change this. The death penalty is constitutional, so we need to stop all of this court fighting. If you want to get rid of it, use politics. And cut down the endless appeals, especially over the manner of execution.
2. Nevertheless, this is the system we have right now. And it's just bizarre to have that kind of pressure put on courts so that SCOTUS can reach a result. There are standards for a reason.
Shorter version- I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the higher court having pre-determined what they were going to do, and ordering the appellate court to get a decision out within an hour so that they can overrule it.
Here's another, "I'm against the death penalty, but...."
I'm against the death penalty, but if we're gotta have one, the guy with three first names always has to go.
The Supreme Court concluded its Bucklew opinion noting that last minute appeals were to be disfavored. As a part of its review of last minute execution matters, the court requires parties to deposit copies of any actions filed in the lower federal courts with the clerk of the Supreme Court. This was a method of execution case – a topic with which the Supreme Court is familiar. Given the already deposited materials, the Supreme Court was analyzing the matter simultaneously with the lower federal courts and was in a position to make a prompt determination without reliance on the lower court analyses.