Amherst professor Austin Sarat observes that the push for death penalty abolition in the United States faced a year of mixed outcomes in 2023, marked by a rise in executions but also legislative progress in some states like Washington. Professor Sarat observes that states like Alabama and South Carolina are making efforts to proceed with executions using new methods or secured drug supplies, Ohio and Tennessee have shown more cautious or progressive stances, signaling an incremental and complex journey toward abolition.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on so-called quasi-death-penalty states, which have criminal laws authorizing capital punishment but have gone five years or more without executing anyone. Professor Sarat explains what it means that Ohio and Nebraska are joining the 15 other de facto abolition states and argues that, in the end, the fate of America’s death penalty will be decided as much in those places as in the few states which continue to carry out the bulk of this country’s executions.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on the case of Anthony Apanovitch—a man on Ohio’s death row who was exonerated yet whom the state still plans to execute. Professor Sarat describes Apanovitch’s unique situation and calls upon the Ohio Parole Board to recommend to Ohio’s governor that Apanovitch be pardoned and set free.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat describes recent developments in Utah and Ohio, where conservative legislators have introduced bills that would end capital punishment in those states. Professor Sarat explains why, although conservatives have historically favored capital punishment, opposing it is more consistent with other conservative values, like opposing abortion.
UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on the US Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the Court upheld the legality of Ohio’s voter list maintenance procedure. Griffin explains some of the key points made in each of the four opinions and shares a deeply personal story about how she came to understand how seemingly innocuous list-maintenance laws like the one in this case disproportionately affect minorities, low-income people, the disabled, the homeless, and veterans—just as Justice Sotomayor described in her separate dissent.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why a group of legislators in Ohio recently voted to adopt a law that prohibits abortion of any fetus with a “detectable heartbeat”—around six weeks after conception—in clear violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 holding in Roe v. Wade. Dorf describes what a “Trump Court” might do (and what it might not do) with respect to this Ohio law and others like it.