Salt Lake City – The ACLU along with their state affiliate in Utah filed an amicus brief in the Utah Supreme Court this week urging the court to uphold the Utah Constitution’s protection against “unnecessary rigor” in the carceral system and allow a group of people on the state death row to challenge their method of execution.
The Utah Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment” with language that mirrors the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. However, Article I, Section 9 of the Utah Constitution extends further by stating that individuals “imprisoned shall not be treated with unnecessary rigor.”
In the ACLU’s brief for Menzies v. Utah Department of Corrections, it is argued that this broader protection means individuals sentenced to death should not be compelled to propose an alternative execution method when challenging their current method—a requirement established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Glossip v. Gross for federal execution challenges.
“The Utah Constitution’s broad protections for incarcerated people are a feature, not a bug. History shows that the drafters of the Utah Constitution intended for these protections to be more expansive than the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution,” said Bridget Lavender, legal fellow with the ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative.
She added, “Forcing people sentenced to death to overcome unnecessary barriers to challenge their execution method would violate the plain text and ignore the unique nature of the Utah Constitution.”
In the brief, they argue that Article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution provides broader protection than the Eighth Amendment. It includes a clause prohibiting “unnecessary rigor” in the treatment of prisoners, which is absent from the federal constitution.
“Article I, section 9 of the Utah Constitution sweeps more broadly than the Eighth Amendment… By reflexively adopting Eighth Amendment precedent to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim, the district court read the unnecessary rigor clause out of the state constitution,” the brief argues.
In addition, the “Unnecessary Rigor Clause” prohibits any harshness or cruelty that is not essential to the state’s penological goals. The district court erred by not considering this clause independently from the Eighth Amendment.
The brief further argues against adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard from Glossip v. Gross, which requires prisoners to propose an alternative execution method. This requirement conflicts with Utah’s broader constitutional protections.
“The district court’s requirement that death-sentenced prisoners point to an alternative method of execution to challenge the existing methods under section 9 conflicts with and violates that constitutional guarantee,” the brief adds.
Finally, the brief argues by forcing those in death row to propose an execution method, that imposes an unnecessary rigor, which violates the Utah Constitution. It places an undue burden on prisoners, who may lack the expertise or resources to propose feasible alternatives.
The brief argues, “Forcing a prisoner, or their counsel, to act as an instrument of their own execution would not only inflict harsh, degrading, and dehumanizing punishment but would also serve no purpose.”
Utah state law provides that criminal defendants sentenced to death must be executed by lethal injection, with firing squad available as an alternative in certain situations. In this case, plaintiffs challenge these two methods as a violation of the Utah Constitution’s protections in article I section 9.
“The Utah Constitution provides incarcerated people with more expansive protections than the United States Constitution,” said Abby Cook, staff attorney for the ACLU of Utah. “Based on our state’s unique history and the text of our constitution, our brief underscores that cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessary rigor have no place in our criminal legal system.”
To read the brief – see here.
