Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Pennsylvania’s anomalous status as the only Northeastern state retaining the death penalty despite a de facto execution moratorium, examining the system’s documented flaws—wrongful convictions, racial disparities, geographic inconsistency, and inadequate indigent defense—alongside Governor Josh Shapiro’s public shift toward abolition. Professor Sarat argues that Pennsylvania should abolish capital punishment and that Shapiro, having already refused to sign execution warrants, should use his remaining time in office to press the legislature toward abolition and pursue commutations for those on death row, despite the steep procedural and political obstacles to both paths.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the contrasting positions of Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump on capital punishment, set against the backdrop of the Justice Department’s April 2026 announcement to restart and expand federal executions. Professor Sarat argues that the Pope’s moral condemnation of the death penalty as an affront to human dignity—offered without anger or political calculation—exposes the cruelty underlying the Trump administration’s embrace of capital punishment and should reinvigorate the abolition movement in the United States.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision to leave in place an injunction blocking Alabama’s execution of Jeffery Lee by nitrogen hypoxia—the first time the Court has ever obstructed a state’s chosen execution method—and places that decision in the broader context of the Court’s strong pro-capital-punishment record. Professor Sarat argues that while the ruling did not resolve the underlying Eighth Amendment question, it is nonetheless historically significant, as it signals a potential crack in the Court’s near-uniform deference to states on execution methods, particularly given disturbing evidence that nitrogen hypoxia causes severe suffering rather than the painless death its proponents claimed.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a federal district court ruling permitting Alabama to execute Jeffrey Lee via nitrogen hypoxia despite the judge’s own findings that the method causes severe suffering, examining the decision’s constitutional implications and the broader erosion of Eighth Amendment protections. Professor Sarat argues that Judge Marks’s originalist interpretation effectively nullifies the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by limiting its scope to methods the Founders would have recognized as barbaric, rather than applying the “evolving standards of decency” framework the clause requires to remain meaningful.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Department of Justice’s decision to seek the death penalty for Elias Rodriguez following his 2025 antisemitic murders at the Capital Jewish Museum. Professor Sarat argues that American Jews should oppose the execution because capital punishment contradicts the Jewish values of “repairing the world,” violates long-standing rabbinical skepticism toward state-sanctioned killing, and denies the fundamental human right to make moral amends.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the historical prominence and systemic flaws of capital punishment in Texas as the state nears its 600th execution since 1977. Professor Sarat argues that Texas’s continued practice of executing intellectually disabled and mentally ill individuals defies constitutional standards and highlights an urgent need for political leaders to abolish the death penalty.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the case of Tony Carruthers, a Tennessee death row inmate scheduled for execution despite significant evidence of innocence and severe procedural failures at trial. Professor Sarat argues that Governor Bill Lee should exercise his clemency power to spare Carruthers’ life, contending that the case exemplifies the systemic failings that make executive clemency a critical but underused safeguard against miscarriages of justice.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Israel’s newly passed death penalty law for Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis, situating it within broader historical, ethical, and international legal contexts. Professor Sarat argues that the law is a serious mistake—unnecessary, discriminatory, inconsistent with Israel’s own founding principles, and contrary to the country's potential to serve as a democratic and moral example in the region.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat explains how a federal judge’s decision in the Luigi Mangione case exemplifies the Trump administration’s broader failures to reinstate and pursue the federal death penalty. Professor Sarat argues that political motivations, procedural missteps, and disregard for legal standards have caused multiple courts to block capital prosecutions, undermining the administration’s aggressive death penalty agenda.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat describes a groundbreaking ruling by Tennessee Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea that redefines executions as part of the judicial process that includes all preparatory steps leading to death, not just the final moment. Professor Sarat argues that this interpretation could reshape how the Fifth and Eighth Amendments apply to capital punishment cases, particularly in situations where botched execution attempts cause prolonged suffering or where states seek to execute someone a second time after a failed attempt.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the state of clemency in U.S. capital punishment cases during 2025, contrasting a wave of clemency actions in 2024 with a sharp decline the following year under the return of President Donald Trump. Professor Sarat argues that Trump’s punitive stance and politicization of clemency discouraged governors from granting mercy and contends that executive leaders should actively use clemency powers to uphold justice and compassion in the face of growing cruelty.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the historical and contemporary use of the firing squad as a method of execution in the United States, which is currently rare but authorized in a few states, including South Carolina, which recently executed Stephen Bryant using this method. Professor Sarat argues that execution by firing squad is a brutal, cold-blooded killing that is not a humane method of capital punishment and reflects a problematic, violent history, thus lessening society as a whole.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the use of nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution, particularly in Alabama, where it has resulted in prolonged, painful deaths that contradict claims of a humane alternative to previous execution methods. Professor Sarat argues that nitrogen hypoxia, like earlier methods, has failed to provide a foolproof or ethical solution and calls for the abolition of capital punishment altogether, emphasizing the psychological and physical torture it inflicts and questioning what such practices say about the values of American society.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to stay Robert Roberson’s execution and send his case back to trial court to reconsider the now-discredited shaken baby syndrome diagnosis that led to his conviction. Professor Sarat argues that while the court’s intervention is a positive step, it falls short by ignoring other critical issues in Roberson’s case—such as his undiagnosed autism, poor legal representation, and evidence pointing to his daughter’s death from natural causes—thus failing to address the full scope of the miscarriage of justice.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines a recent lawsuit in Arkansas challenging a new law, Act 302, which gives the state's Department of Corrections unchecked discretion to choose between execution by lethal injection or nitrogen hypoxia, without timely notice or legislative guidance. Professor Sarat argues that this vague delegation of power is unconstitutional, violates due process and separation of powers, and adds unnecessary psychological cruelty to death row inmates by keeping them uninformed about how they will be executed.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the importance of competency in death penalty cases, focusing on whether individuals like Ralph Menzies—who suffer from dementia and cannot comprehend their punishment—should be eligible for execution. Professor Sarat argues that executing cognitively impaired individuals violates the core purpose of punishment as a form of moral accountability, and calls for shifting the legal burden onto the state to prove competency in such cases to prevent unjust and inhumane executions.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Delaware’s historic efforts to constitutionally ban the death penalty, positioning the state to become one of the few U.S. jurisdictions with an explicit constitutional prohibition against capital punishment. Professor Sarat argues that to ensure lasting abolition, death penalty opponents across the country should pursue constitutional amendments rather than rely on statutes or court rulings, which are more susceptible to reversal.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the impending execution of Byron Black in Tennessee, highlighting deep flaws in the state’s application of the death penalty, particularly for intellectually disabled and medically vulnerable individuals. Professor Sarat argues that Black’s case exemplifies the cruelty, legal absurdities, and moral failings of the death penalty system, urging an end to a practice that undermines justice and human dignity.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the case of Vance Boelter, who allegedly murdered Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband and attempted to murder Sen. John Hoffman and his wife in politically motivated attacks targeting elected Democrats. Professor Sarat argues that despite the horrific nature of these crimes, federal prosecutors should not seek the death penalty in Minnesota, which abolished capital punishment over a century ago and whose citizens would likely reject it.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Tennessee’s new policy of imposing a two-week isolation period and a 12-hour communication blackout on death row inmates prior to execution, framing it within broader concerns about the harsh conditions of death row in the U.S. Professor Sarat argues that these practices are unnecessarily cruel, serve no legitimate purpose, and should be ended either by state action or judicial intervention.
