April 22 marks the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, in which the Court ruled that a defendant cannot rely upon statistical evidence of systemic racial bias to prove his death sentence unconstitutional, no matter how strong that evidence may be. McCleskey has been roundly condemned as a low point in the quest for equality that begs to be revisited. To mark the occasion, every day this week the ACLU Blog of Rights will feature a new post about McCleskey and its legacy. You can read all the posts here, and visit to learn more.
Twenty-five years ago this week the Supreme Court announced its decision in , ruling that a defendant cannot rely upon statistical evidence of systemic racial bias to prove his death sentence unconstitutional, no matter how strong that evidence may be. McCleskey has been roundly condemned as a "low point" in the quest for equality, comparable to Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) — which held that people of African ancestry were not entitled to the protections of the Constitution — and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) — which upheld racial segregation of public facilities.
McCleskey's reputation is well deserved. The case began when lawyers working with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund learned that University of Iowa professors David Baldus, Charles Pulaski and George Woodworth were conducting a large, sophisticated study of race and the death penalty in Georgia. showed that even after accounting for things like details of the crime and background information about the defendant, racial bias infected the death penalty in Georgia. Black defendants charged with the murder of white victims, like Warren McCleskey, were more than four times as likely to be sentenced to death as anyone else. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyers took this evidence to court and argued that it showed an impermissible risk that racial bias contributed to Warren McCleskey's death sentence in violation of the Constitution.
A federal district court held a long hearing about the statistical evidence, ultimately ruling against Warren McCleskey based on quibbles over the methodology of the Baldus study. On appeal, the Court of Appeals assumed the validity of the statistical evidence but ruled that the disparities were insufficient to strike the Georgia death penalty because, in its view, they did not demonstrate discriminatory intent. The Supreme Court also ruled against Warren McCleskey — but on even more insidious grounds.
Like the lower appellate court, the Supreme Court assumed that the statistical evidence was valid. But the Court categorically rejected the idea that statistical evidence was sufficient to show a constitutional violation, requiring instead that a defendant show "exceptionally clear proof" of discrimination under the facts of his or her own case. This near impossibility effectively shut the door to any thing short of "smoking gun" evidence of intentional discrimination — evidence that is unlikely to exist, or unlikely to be discovered by the defense. Indeed, we are aware of no capital defendant who has prevailed under this standard in the 25 years since McCleskey was decided.
The Court's explanation for erecting such a high evidentiary standard was devastating: in the Court's view, racial disparities in criminal justice sentencing are "inevitable." This view was underscored in a McCleskey memo by Justice Antonin Scalia, found among Justice Thurgood Marshall's papers, in which Justice Scalia conceded that he had all the proof of discrimination he needed, and reported his opinion that racial bias was both "real" and "ineradicable."
The Supreme Court was blunt that its decision was motivated in part by fear that overturning Warren McCleskey's death sentence might open the door to similar results in other cases. The Court acknowledged it feared that if it recognized racial discrimination was a problem in capital cases, it might also have to recognize the harm caused by discrimination in other types of criminal cases. In other words, as Justice Brennan wrote in the dissent, the Court was afraid of "too much justice."
The McCleskey decision was a close one — the five justices in the majority won a slim victory over the bitter dissents of four. Over time, Justice Powell, the author of the majority opinion, in McCleskey. Yet Justice Powell never had the opportunity to recast his vote. In the 25 years since McCleskey, the Court has never revisited its shameful holding.
Learn more about race and the death penalty: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
PodcastDec 2024
Capital Punishment
Can Commuting the Row Be Biden's Real Legacy? Herman Lindsey and Cassy Stubbs Discuss With W. Kamau BellCan Commuting the Row Be Biden's Real Legacy? Herman Lindsey and Cassy Stubbs Discuss With W. Kamau Bell
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Capital Punishment
Over 130 Civil and Human Rights Organizations Call on President Biden to Commute Federal Death SentencesOver 130 Civil and Human Rights Organizations Call on President Biden to Commute Federal Death Sentences
WASHINGTON – More than 130 civil and human rights organizations, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, issued a letter to President Biden today, urging him to commute the sentences of people on federal death row before he leaves office. The letter highlights the moral and legal failings of the death penalty in the United States and stresses the urgency of action to prevent the potential resurgence of federal executions under an incoming Trump administration. The groups call on Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to address the irrevocably broken federal death penalty and to “bring America into a new era of moral leadership.” President Biden was the first presidential candidate to openly oppose the death penalty, and his administration issued a moratorium on federal executions. With 40 men still on death row, however, the letter emphasizes that commuting federal death sentences is the only irreversible action President Biden can take to prevent the incoming administration from attempting another execution spree. "President Biden has an opportunity to make history by addressing the racist and unjust federal death penalty system and keep an early campaign promise he made to the American people,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “Commuting the sentences of those on death row would help end the death penalty once and for all and prevent a second execution spree by President Trump. Trump’s first act of political theater ended in the execution of 13 people. President Biden shouldn’t allow Trump to repeat that travesty." In Trump’s final months in office, his administration executed 13 people in rapid succession, more than any administration in over 120 years. The Trump administration also amended the federal execution protocol which opened the door to more brutal methods of execution, including death by firing squad, electrocution, and nitrogen hypoxia, an untested and torturous method. Below are additional comments from: Paul O’Brien, executive director, Amnesty International USA: “President-elect Trump has promised to restart and accelerate the federal death machine, just as he did in his last administration. In the span of only 6 months, the Trump administration executed more people than the 10 previous presidential administrations combined. The executions carried out in his first term demonstrated to the world how the federal death penalty is fundamentally broken and that this ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment should be abolished forever. We should take Trump at his word when he says he plans to repeat this horrific killing spree, and Biden must do what he can now to prevent it.” Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel, Legal Defense Fund: “Since our founding, LDF has been unwavering in its fight to abolish the death penalty and eliminate racial discrimination from our criminal legal system. The death penalty is rooted in slavery, lynchings, and white vigilantism and historically weaponized against people of color. From the Groveland Four in 1949 to many capital cases today, Black people are disproportionately impacted by the ultimate punishment. Commuting the sentences of the 40 individuals on federal death row is an unprecedented opportunity for President Biden to cement his commitment to remedying injustice by exercising executive clemency.” Margaret Huang, president and CEO, The Southern Poverty Law Center: “The death penalty is rooted in a deep history of racialized violence. To this day, race is still the biggest predictor of who gets sentenced to death, with Black people accounting for nearly 40% of those on federal death row, despite representing less than 12% of the adult population. And fully 70% of those on federal death row are from the South. Our nation, and particularly the communities that we serve in the Deep South, cannot achieve true racial justice while the death penalty remains in practice.” Joia Erin Thornton, executive director, FLOCC (Faith Leaders of Color Coalition): “President Biden should commute all federal death sentences because doing so would acknowledge and help redress the racial bias built into the federal death penalty system, allow government resources to be redirected to policies that actually make our communities safer, and allow the families of victims and incarcerated persons to focus on healing instead of living in legal limbo.” This letter is one of more than a dozen letters released today from hundreds of stakeholders from across the political and faith spectrums calling on President Biden to commute all federal death sentences, including Black pastors, former corrections officials, business leaders, current and former prosecutors, families who have lost loved ones to homicide, mental health advocates, and many more. All of the letters can be found here. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Capital Punishment
Biden Must Use Final Months in Office to Commute Federal Death SentencesBiden Must Use Final Months in Office to Commute Federal Death Sentences
In our series on how Biden can use the lame duck period to secure civil liberties and civil rights, we examine how Biden can combat President-elect Trump’s plans to greatly expand the death penalty and execute every person on the federal row. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Capital Punishment
National Security
Court Rules Signed Plea Agreements with Three of the 9/11 Defendants Are Valid and Must Go Into EffectCourt Rules Signed Plea Agreements with Three of the 9/11 Defendants Are Valid and Must Go Into Effect
WASHINGTON — A U.S. military court has agreed that the plea agreement reached with ACLU client Khalid Shaikh Mohammad back in August is valid and must go into effect. The judge’s decision comes three months after Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, overruled prosecutors and Brig. General Susan Escallier, the Guantánamo military commission’s convening authority, and revoked the signed plea agreement. In exchange for a guilty plea to all counts, the U.S. government agreed to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and two other defendants. The military judge’s decision follows litigation by the three defendants to enforce their agreement with the government. The negotiated plea process allows family members to get answers to long-held questions about the attacks directly from the defendants and, at sentencing, make statements about the tragic impact on them and their loved ones. The military judge has said he will next schedule a hearing for the guilty pleas to be entered. Since 2008, through its John Adams Project, the ACLU has provided capital defense support for detainees facing the death penalty in the military commissions, spending over $12.5 million to provide experienced capital defenders, mitigation specialists, investigators, and experts to the under-resourced military defense teams. Our efforts exposed unfairness, secrecy, and the ongoing role of torture in the Guantanamo military commissions, making clear that the commissions are a complete failure. The following is a statement from Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU: “By reinstating the plea agreements, Col. Matthew N. McCall rightly recognizes that Defense Secretary Austin stepped out of bounds. We are finally back at the only practical solution after nearly two decades of litigation. “The government's decision to settle for life imprisonment instead of seeking the death penalty in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was always the right call. For too long, the U.S. has repeatedly defended its use of torture and unconstitutional military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay. As a nation, we must move forward with the plea process and sentencing hearing that is intended to give victim family members answers to their questions. They deserve transparency and finality about the events that claimed their loved ones. “This plea agreement further underscores the fact that the death penalty is out of step with the fundamental values of our democratic system. It is inhumane, inequitable, and unjust. “We also urge the U.S. government to quickly relocate the men cleared for transfer, and finally end all indefinite detentions and unfair trials at Guantánamo.”