Tag: Stephen Breyer

In seven angry pages, Justice Stephen G. Breyer recounted how the conservative majority on the court had refused his request to delay the execution of an Alabama inmate for a few hours so he and the other justices could discuss the matter in person at their usual Friday morning conference. Instead, by a 5-to-4 vote in the middle of the night, the court allowed the execution to proceed, with the conservative justices in the majority and the liberals in dissent. The dispute among the justices on Friday lasted long enough that Alabama officials postponed the execution of the inmate, Christopher L. Price, which had been scheduled for Thursday night. “To proceed in this matter in the middle of the night without giving all members of the court the opportunity for discussion tomorrow morning is, I believe, unfortunate.” The majority, in a brief unsigned opinion, said Mr. Price had waited too long to raise his claim that Alabama’s method of execution, a lethal injection of three chemicals, could subject him to excruciating pain. Mr. Price asked to be executed using nitrogen gas, a method allowed by Alabama law. Around 9 p.m. on Thursday, Alabama officials asked the Supreme Court to allow the execution to go forward. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority was “profoundly wrong.” In March, the court halted the execution of a Buddhist inmate in Texas in similar circumstances, over two noted dissents, with the majority apparently satisfied that the request had been timely. In his dissent on Friday, Justice Breyer reviewed the proceedings in Mr. Price’s case and said undue haste had undermined justice. “I recognized that my request would delay resolution of the application and that the state would have to obtain a new execution warrant, thus delaying the execution by 30 days. “But in my judgment, that delay was warranted, at least on the facts as we have them now,” Justice Breyer wrote.

Justice Stephen Breyer suggested a rule that a map be deemed an unconstitutional gerrymander if one party can win a majority of the statewide vote but nonetheless end up with less than one third of the available legislative seats.

WASHINGTON — Overly broad state laws that ban wearing political messages inside polling places are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. During oral argument in February, state officials said the law had not been challenged until now. Chief Justice John Roberts issued the court's opinion, calling the state's effort to make polling places less clamorous admirable. Sotomayor had expressed support for the state law during oral argument in February, noting some people viewed "Please I.D. All 50 states regulate campaign advocacy in and around polling places for reasons most of the justices readily defended during oral argument. Federal district and appeals courts dismissed the complaints from Andrew Cilek and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, but the Supreme Court has been protective of free speech rights even when it disagrees with the message. The problem, Roberts said, is that Minnesota's prohibition doesn't specify what's allowed and what isn't, leaving too much up to the whim of temporary polling place officials. The case was one of several before the court this term that affect voting, which the justices have quarreled over for years following their landmark 5-4 decision in 2013 striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act. Can a state prohibit voters from wearing a "Make America Great Again" or "#MeToo" T-shirt? And why would it be OK to herald First Amendment freedom of speech rights across one's chest, but not Second Amendment rights affecting firearms -- a differentiation Minnesota allowed?