WASHINGTON, D.C. – As execution dates rise across the United States, legal scholars and court records affirm that the judiciary remains an indispensable check on capital punishment and government power. A recent commentary by Khalil A. Cumberbatch and Marc A. Levin in ClearPolitics underscores the constitutional and procedural role of the courts in ensuring fairness—even for those accused of the most serious crimes.
The authors argue that amid an intensifying political climate and increasing pressure on the federal judiciary, the courts have shown they are still a vital arbiter of justice. “Calls to impeach federal judges and threats of violence against the judiciary undermine the vital role courts play in ensuring disputes are settled peacefully,” the commentary states.
Cumberbatch and Levin cite the example of Rodney Reed, a Texas death row prisoner whose 2019 execution was stayed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals after new evidence suggested his innocence. “That decision wasn’t just procedural—it was a profound statement that the judiciary exists to uphold fairness, especially when life and death are at stake,” the authors write.
This principle has fresh relevance today. According to death penalty expert Robert Dunham, 37 executions are scheduled for 2025 as of early May, with 12 already carried out. However, as ClearPolitics notes, the existence of a death warrant does not guarantee an execution will proceed—courts often intervene when legal, procedural, or evidentiary concerns arise. Two executions in Ohio have already been paused due to the state’s inability to secure a lawful method of execution.
The ClearPolitics commentary also emphasizes that judicial review is not confined to progressive causes or liberal defendants. In fact, it points to the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Fischer v. United States—a landmark ruling that limited the federal government’s attempt to use obstruction statutes originally enacted to combat corporate fraud against Jan. 6 defendants.
The Court ruled that the statute in question—18 U.S. Code § 1512, intended to penalize the destruction of evidence—was improperly stretched by prosecutors to apply to riot-related conduct. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in concurrence, “Hewing closely to Congress’s will… is especially important when construing laws like this one, which implicate the possible imposition of punitive sanctions.”
Legal observers note that the ruling in Fischer now sets a precedent that protects all defendants from prosecutorial overreach—underscoring the nonpartisan importance of an independent judiciary.
The ClearPolitics article also connects these judicial checks to broader structural concerns: as the Trump administration faces 174 pending lawsuits, the role of the courts as a check on executive power becomes even more pronounced. One high-profile case involves the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to an El Salvador prison, now heading to the Supreme Court. These are not just political flashpoints; they are tests of the constitutional promise of due process.
As Cumberbatch and Levin note, more than 3,300 wrongful convictions have been documented in the U.S. since 1989, most overturned because judges were willing to reexamine flawed trials and evidence. Legislative reform alone did not free the innocent—judicial scrutiny did.
“Checks and balances are not theoretical. They are the living framework that guards against injustice,” the authors write. “Without courts to scrutinize executive actions… the system breaks down. And in a criminal justice context, that breakdown doesn’t just mean inefficiency—it means unlawful detentions, wrongful convictions, and even the execution of an innocent person.”
In the era of rapid-fire policy shifts and heated partisanship, the judiciary remains the slow, deliberate force charged with ensuring that government power—especially the power to punish—is exercised lawfully. Whether upholding due process in deportation proceedings or halting a questionable execution, the courts serve not partisan ends, but the enduring principle that justice must be tethered to law.
