Lagasse v. Inch

The Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari (a request for the Court to review a case) regarding how Florida applies death penalty reforms. The case challenged Florida's decision to grant new sentencing hearings to some death-row inmates while denying them to others based on the date of their final sentence.

This decision leaves in place a system where an inmate's chance at a new sentence depends entirely on when their original case ended. For those on death row in Florida, this means some will receive a chance to avoid execution while others in similar situations will not.

The dispute stems from a 2016 ruling that required Florida juries, rather than judges, to find the facts necessary to impose a death sentence. Florida courts decided this rule only applies to cases finalized after 2002, creating a legal divide among inmates.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on May 26, 2020, which effectively leaves the lower court's ruling against the petitioner in place.

The Supreme Court will not intervene in Florida's process for deciding which death-row inmates qualify for new sentencing hearings.

Legal experts and advocates will monitor how Florida courts continue to handle death penalty appeals under the current cutoff dates. Affected parties must now look for other legal avenues or wait for potential legislative changes to the state's sentencing rules.

The case questioned if Florida could legally give some death-row inmates new hearings while denying others. This choice was based on the specific date their original sentences became final.

Many inmates on Florida's death row will remain ineligible for new sentencing hearings. This creates a permanent divide in how the state treats people facing the death penalty.

The challenge involved the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect against cruel punishment and ensure equal protection. The petitioner argued the state's timing-based rule violated these constitutional rights.

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the lower court's decision stands as final. Observers will now watch how other lower courts and state agencies respond to this outcome.

This case highlights the ongoing struggle over retroactivity (whether new rules apply to old cases). Courts often struggle to balance fairness for inmates with the finality of old legal decisions.