Nance v. Ward

Nance v. Ward
Nance v. Ward
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 25, 2022; Decided June 23, 2022
Full case name	Michael Nance v. Timothy C. Ward, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, et al.
Docket no.	21-439
Citations	597 U.S. ___ ( more ) 2022 WL 2251307; 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3054
Argument	Oral argument
Decision	Opinion
Holding
	Section 1983 remains an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner's method-of-execution claim where, as here, the prisoner proposes an alternative method not authorized by the State’s death-penalty statute.
Court membership
	Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer ; Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor ; Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch ; Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
Majority	Kagan, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh
Dissent	Barrett, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amend. VIII

Last updated June 06, 2023

Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' as-applied challenges to methods of execution.

Background

In December 1993, Michael Nance robbed a bank and committed murder during a carjacking. He was convicted and sentenced to death soon thereafter. In January 2020, Nance filed an as-applied challenge to Georgia's execution protocol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting its use of lethal injection would subject him to a level of pain that is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court dismissed Nance's claim on the basis that it was meritless and was untimely.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that Nance's request for a firing squad, which is not authorized by Georgia law, constituted an attack on his death sentence and thus had to be filed in the context of a writ of habeas corpus. Then, the court found the request was "second or successive," and vacated and remanded for the district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Beverly B. Martin dissented. The court denied rehearing en banc over the dissent of Judge Charles R. Wilson, who was joined by two other judges. Nance filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.^[1]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case on January 14, 2022. Oral arguments were held on April 25, 2022.

Ruling

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit in a 5–4 vote. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent.

The court ruled that a claim for an alternative methods of execution that is not authorized by the state can still be addressed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and does not need to be filed in the context of a writ of habeas corpus. This extends the reach of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to include alternative methods of execution not authorized by the state, as well as, those authorized by the state.

Opinion of the Court

In her writing for the majority, Justice Kagan stated that it is through "comparative exercise" that the state does not "cruelly superadd(s)" pain onto the inmate, in violation of their Eighth Amendment rights. That the inmate has an option to choose a method of death that is not practiced by the state of imprisonment but also other states, this reduces the "burden" of the inmate. She adds that due to the "vagaries of state law”, if prisoners of different state have to file different types of claims (e.g. an inmate filing a §1983 claim in Alabama for a firing squad as their preferred choice of death and an inmate filing a habeas claim in Georgia for the same method of death), this "non-conformity" would be "strange". She wrote that the inmate claim for a differing death method is not dispute their death sentence and does not prevent or burden the state from issuing the death penalty to the inmate, the state can simply change its laws on death penalty as they have done before.

Dissent

In her dissent, Justice Barrett wrote that the claim by the prisoner would prevent the state from executing the prisoner as the state does not practice such a method of execution under their laws, therefore the claim made should be a habeas claim and not a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She rebuts the majority claim by arguing that the non-conformity is an "unremarkable consequence of federalism" and enjoinment of the death sentence is to enjoin enforcement of it, therefore a habeas claim should be filed.

Reactions

Matthew Hellman, a partner of the law firm that represented the inmate, released a statement saying that the ruling provides the inmate "a pathway to seek a humane and lawful execution".^[2]

Related Research Articles

Napoleon Beazley was a convicted murderer executed by lethal injection by the State of Texas for the murder of 63-year-old businessman John Luttig in 1994.

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Glass v. Louisiana, 471 U.S. 1080 (1985), was a case denied for hearing by the United States Supreme Court in 1985. The case is famous for Justice Brennan's dissent from the denial of certiorari, joined by Justice Marshall, arguing that the death penalty is always unconstitutional.

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court expanded the ability to reopen a case in light of new evidence of innocence.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the route through which a prisoner may obtain biological DNA material for testing to challenge his conviction; whether through a civil rights suit or a habeas corpus petition. A majority of the Court held that the civil rights path was the appropriate path.

Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

In law, post conviction refers to the legal process which takes place after a trial results in conviction of the defendant. After conviction, a court will proceed with sentencing the guilty party. In the American criminal justice system, once a defendant has received a guilty verdict, he or she can then challenge a conviction or sentence. This takes place through different legal actions, known as filing an appeal or a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The goal of these proceedings is exoneration, or proving a convicted person innocent. If lacking representation, the defendant may consult or hire an attorney to exercise his or her legal rights.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.

Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that an officer's failure to read Miranda warnings to a suspect in custody does not alone provide basis for a claim of civil liability under Section 1983 of United States Code. In the case, the Court reviewed its previous holding of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to determine whether respondent Carlos Vega violated plaintiff Terence Tekoh's constitutional rights by failing to read Tekoh his Miranda rights prior to interrogation. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six-justice majority that Tekoh's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated, as Miranda rights are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution."

Shoop v. Twyford, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' habeas corpus petitions.

Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court considering whether a prisoner's appeal of proposed execution procedures was equivalent to a habeas corpus petition. The court held unanimously that an appeal of proposed execution procedures is different from a habeas corpus petition because it is not an appeal of a conviction or sentence.

Garland v. Gonzalez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

References

↑ Howe, Amy (January 14, 2022). "Court will take up five new cases, including lawsuit from football coach who wanted to pray on the field". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved January 16, 2022.
↑ Tierney Sneed, Ariane de Vogue and Chandelis Duster (June 23, 2022). "Supreme Court sides with inmate who wants to die by firing squad". CNN. Retrieved June 23, 2022.

External links

Text of Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. ___(2022) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Howe, Amy (January 14, 2022). "Court will take up five new cases, including lawsuit from football coach who wanted to pray on the field". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved January 16, 2022.

[2] Tierney Sneed, Ariane de Vogue and Chandelis Duster (June 23, 2022). "Supreme Court sides with inmate who wants to die by firing squad". CNN. Retrieved June 23, 2022.

[1]

[2]