Nance v. Ward
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Nance v. Ward and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Courtās short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Nance v. Ward.
In Nance v. Ward, the Supreme Court addressed whether a prisoner can use 42 U.S.C. Ā§ 1983 to challenge a state's method of execution by proposing an alternative method not authorized by state law. The Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit's decision, allowing such claims under Ā§ 1983, even if the alternative method requires a change in state law.
Holding
The single most important ābottom lineā of what the Court decided in Nance v. Ward.
The Court held that Ā§ 1983 is an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner's method-of-execution claim when the prisoner proposes an alternative method not authorized by the State's death-penalty statute.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Nance v. Ward. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Cruel and Unusual Punishment is relevant to Nance v. Ward
The case involves a challenge to the method of execution under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A prisoner who challenges a State's proposed method of execution under the Eighth Amendment must identify a readily available alternative method that would significantly reduce the risk of severe pain.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Nance v. Ward
The case discusses the procedural requirements for bringing a method-of-execution claim under Ā§ 1983 versus habeas corpus, which implicates procedural due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Both Ā§ 1983 and the federal habeas statute enable a prisoner to complain of 'unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials.'
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to Nance v. Ward
The Court's decision involves determining the appropriate legal vehicle for seeking relief, which is central to the remedies available to the petitioner.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: Section 1983 remains an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner's method-of-execution claim where, as here, the prisoner proposes an alternative method not authorized by the State's death-penalty statute.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Nance v. Ward that support the summary and concepts above.
Section 1983 remains an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner's method-of-execution claim where, as here, the prisoner proposes an alternative method not authorized by the State's death-penalty statute.
A prisoner may generally sue under Ā§ 1983, unless his claim falls into that statute's 'implicit exception' for actions that lie 'within the core of habeas corpus.'
The Court of Appeals could reach the contrary conclusion only by wrongly treating Georgia's statute as immutable.
