List of United States Supreme Court decisions on capital punishment

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings on the use of capital punishment (the death penalty). While some rulings applied very narrowly, perhaps to only one individual, other cases have had great influence over wide areas of procedure, eligible crimes, acceptable evidence and method of execution.

• United States v. Bass (2002)
• Blystone v. Pennsylvania
• Profitt v. Florida
• Godinez v. Moran
• Brumfield v. Cain
• Ryan v. Schad
• Ake v. Oklahoma
• House v. Bell
• Bell v. Cone
• Snyder v. Louisiana
• Abdur'Rahman v. Bell
• Hillwin v. Florida
• Trevino v. Thaler
• Booth v. Maryland
• Schad v. Arizona
• Espinosa v. Florida
• Williams v. Pennsylvania
• White v. Wheeler
• Wearry v. Cain
• Lynch v. Arizona
• Simmons v. South Carolina
• Jenkins v. Hutton
• Rippo v. Baker
• Bosse v. Oklahoma
• Dunn v. Madison
• Tharpe v. Sellers
• Wilson v. Sellers
• Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman
• Brewer v. Quarterman
• Smith v. Texas (2005)

Case	Year	Vote	Ruling
Rooney v. North Dakota	1905	9-0	Adoption of private execution over public execution after sentence does not violate the Ex post facto clause.
	1915	9-0	Retroactively changing the execution method does not violate the Ex post facto clause.
Powell v. Alabama	1932	7-2	Courts are required to ensure indigent defendants who do not represent themselves must receive appointed counsel in capital cases.
Francis v. Resweber	1947	5-4	Re-execution after a failed attempt does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment nor double jeopardy.
Witherspoon v. Illinois	1968	6-3	A state may not have unlimited challenge for cause of jurors who might object to capital punishment. (See also Morgan v. Illinois (1992))
McGautha v. California	1971	6-3	The death penalty can be imposed by a jury without standards to govern its imposition, and a unitary guilt and punishment trial is constitutional. (Overruled in Furman v. Georgia, 1972, and Gregg v. Georgia, 1976)
Furman v. Georgia	1972	5-4	The death penalty must not be imposed arbitrarily and capriciously. This ruling caused all death sentences pending at the time to be reduced to life imprisonment and voided all previous capital punishment statutes.
Gregg v. Georgia	1976	7-2	Post-Furman death penalty statutes, providing a bifurcated trial in capital cases to decide guilt and punishment, are constitutional.
Woodson v. North Carolina	1976	5-4	Statutes providing mandatory imposition of the death penalty are unconstitutional.
Lockett v. Ohio	1978	6-2	Sentencing authorities must have the discretion to consider every mitigating factor, rather than being limited to a specific list of factors.
Beck v. Alabama	1980	7-2	Jury must be allowed to consider lesser included offense, not just capital offense or acquittal.
Godfrey v. Georgia	1980	6-3	Murder must involve a narrow and precise aggravating factor to be punishable by death.
Enmund v. Florida	1982	5-4	Capital punishment is unconstitutional for a person who is a minor participant in a felony and does not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill.
Pulley v. Harris	1984	7-2	There is no constitutional requirement for a proportionality review of sentences in comparable cases throughout a state.
Spaziano v. Florida	1984	6-3	It is constitutional for a judge rather than jury to decide aggravating factors. (Overruled by Ring v. Arizona, 2002).
	1985
Tison v. Arizona	1987	5-4	Death penalty may be imposed on a felony-murder defendant who was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibits extreme indifference to human life.
McCleskey v. Kemp	1987	5-4	Racial disparities not recognized as a constitutional violation of "equal protection of the law" unless intentional racial discrimination against the defendant can be shown.
	1987	6-3	A death sentence cannot be mandatory, even for a murder committed by a prisoner already serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Lowenfield v. Phelps	1988	7-2	The aggravating factor making the crime punishable by death may be found in the definition of the crime itself as long it is enough narrow and precise.
South Carolina v. Gathers	1989	5-4	Admission of a victim impact statement at the sentencing phase of a death penalty-trial is unconstitutional. (Overruled in Payne v. Tennessee, 1991)
Penry v. Lynaugh	1989	5-4	Executing persons with mental retardation is constitutional. (Overruled in Atkins v. Virginia, 2002)
Walton v. Arizona	1990	5-4	Judge-finding of aggravating factors is constitutional. The aggravating factor "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" is not unconstitutionally vague. (First holding overruled in Ring v. Arizona, 2002)
Payne v. Tennessee	1991	6-3	Victim impact statements are admissible during the penalty phase of a capital case.
Morgan v. Illinois	1992	6-3	A defendant may challenge for cause a prospective juror who would automatically vote to impose the death penalty in every capital case.
Herrera v. Collins	1993	6-3	In the absence of other constitutional grounds, federal courts have no power to rule on innocence claims based on newly discovered evidence.
Schlup v. Delo	1995	5-4	A condemned man can bypass the procedural bar on successive federal habeas petitions if he show that "a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent".
	1995	8-1	Allowing the judge to impose a death sentence and making the jury recommendation non-binding even when it calls for life imprisonment is constitutional.
Tennard v. Dretke	2004	6-3
Schriro v. Summerlin	2004	5-4	Ring v. Arizona does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.
Smith v. Texas	2007	5-4

Eighth Amendment[]

Method of execution[]

• Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879) – Firing squad is constitutional.
• In re Kemmler – Electrocution is constitutional.
• Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) – Challenging constitutionality of the execution method is a §1983 lawsuit, not a habeas corpus petition, and thus not subject to the procedural bar on successive petitions.
• Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) – Kentucky's lethal injection method using sodium thiopental is constitutional.
• Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015) – To be unconstitutional, a method of execution must involve any risk of harm which is substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method. The condemned has the burden of proof.
• Bucklew v. Precythe, No. 17-8151, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) – Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain. A method is unconstitutional only when it "superadds pain well beyond what’s needed to effectuate a death sentence."
• Barr v. Lee, No. 20A8, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)

Specific crimes[]

• Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) – The death penalty is an unconstitutional punishment for rape of an adult woman when the victim is not killed.
• Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) – The death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape and other non-homicidal crimes against the person.

Age[]

• Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988) – Capital punishment for crimes committed at 15 years of age or less is unconstitutional.
• Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) – The death penalty for crimes committed at age 16 or 17 is constitutional. (Overruled in Roper v. Simmons)
• Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) – The death penalty for those who committed their crimes while under 18 years of age is unconstitutional.

Intellectual disability[]

• Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) – Execution of an insane convict is unconstitutional.
• Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) –
• Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) – The execution of mentally retarded offenders is unconstitutional.
• Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) – A person may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution. Once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpus proceedings.
• Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014) – IQ tests alone can not be used as a rigid limit for determining intellectual disability.
• Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797, 581 U.S. ___ (2017)
• Madison v. Alabama, No. 17-7505, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) – Executing a prisoner who cannot remember committing his or her crime may be constitutional, but executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder, rather than psychotic delusions, may not be.
• Kahler v. Kansas, No. 18-6135, 589 U.S. ___ (2020)

Trial procedure (sentencing)[]

• Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006) – States may limit the evidence of innocence a defendant may present at his sentencing hearing to evidence already presented at his trial.
• Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006) – Imposing the death penalty when mitigating and aggravating factors are in equipoise is constitutional.
• Kansas v. Carr, No. 14-449, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)

Sixth Amendment[]

• Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) – A death sentence where the necessary aggravating factors are determined by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury, as the jury should determine if there are such factors sufficient to allow the death penalty.
• Hurst v. Florida – Florida law giving judges the power to decide facts related to sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring, which requires a jury to determine if there are aggravating factors making the crime punishable by death.
• United States v. Tsarnaev (TBD)

Habeas corpus and ineffective assistance of counsel[]

• Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009) – Indigent death row inmates sentenced under state law have a right to federally funded habeas counsel in post-conviction state clemency proceedings, when the state has denied such counsel.
• , 556 U.S. 825 (2009)
• Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015)
• Buck v. Davis, No. 15-8049, 580 U.S. ___ (2017)
• McWilliams v. Dunn, No. 16-5294, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) – Capital defendants are entitled to a court-appointed medical expert for their defense.
• , No. 16-6219, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
• , No. 16-6795, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
• McKinney v. Arizona, No. 18-1109, 589 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Shinn v. Ramirez (TBD)

Summary reversal and vacatur[]

• Shoop v. Hill, No. 18-56, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
• Moore v. Texas, No. 18-443, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
• Andrus v. Texas, No. 18-9674, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Barr v. Lee, No. 20A8, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Shinn v. Kayer, No. 19-1302, 592 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Mays v. Hines, No. 20-507, 592 U.S. ___ (2021)
• Dunn v. Reeves, No. 20-1084, 594 U.S. ___ (2021)

International law[]

• Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998)
• Medellín v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005)
• Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)
• Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011) – Courts cannot stay an execution on the grounds that Congress might eventually enact a statute to enforce an international law.

Free Exercise Clause[]

• Ramirez v. Collier, No. 21-5592, 595 U.S. ___ (2022)

Chronological listing[]

• Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
• Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)
• Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988)
• Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989)
• Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998)
• Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998)
• Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
• Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
• Medellín v. Dretke, 544 U.S. 660 (2005)
• Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006)
• Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006)
• Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006)
• Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007)
• Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008)
• Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008)
• Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009)
• , 556 U.S. 825 (2009)
• Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011)
• Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014)
• Davis v. Ayala, No. 13-1428, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
• Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
• Kansas v. Carr, No. 14-449, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
• Buck v. Davis, No. 15-8049, 580 U.S. ___ (2017)
• Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797, 581 U.S. ___ (2017)
• McWilliams v. Dunn, No. 16-5294, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
• , No. 16-6219, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
• , No. 16-6795, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
• Shoop v. Hill, No. 18-56, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
• Moore v. Texas, No. 18-443, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
• Madison v. Alabama, No. 17-7505, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
• Bucklew v. Precythe, No. 17-8151, 587 U.S. ___ (2019)
• McKinney v. Arizona, No. 18-1109, 589 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Kahler v. Kansas, No. 18-6135, 589 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Andrus v. Texas, No. 18-9674, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Barr v. Lee, No. 20A8, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Shinn v. Kayer, No. 19-1302, 592 U.S. ___ (2020)
• Mays v. Hines, No. 20-507, 592 U.S. ___ (2021)
• Dunn v. Reeves, No. 20-1084, 594 U.S. ___ (2021)
• Ramirez v. Collier, No. 21-5592, 595 U.S. ___ (2022)
• United States v. Tsarnaev (TBD)
• Shinn v. Ramirez (TBD)

See also[]

• Capital punishment in the United States

References[]

• Capital Punishment: Legal Aspects – Early Constitutional Intervention
• History of the Death Penalty, University of Alaska Anchorage, Justice Center