Stanford V. Kentucky: Federal Vs. State Immunity

The Stanford v. Kentucky case, which pitted the federal government against the state of Kentucky, revolved around the issue of sovereign immunity. The University of Kentucky (UK) Board of Trustees and President Lee Todd represented the state, while the United States Department of Education (USDE) and the federal government represented the federal government.

Stanford v. Kentucky

The case of Stanford v. Kentucky, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1989, is a landmark case that addresses the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection. Here’s an in-depth explanation of the case’s structure:

Introduction:

  • Provides a brief overview of the case, including the main issue at hand.
  • States the names of the parties involved and the court that ruled on the case.

Facts of the Case:

  • Outlines the circumstances that led to the case, including:
    • The arrest and conviction of a black man, Willie Lloyd Stanford, for murder in Kentucky.
    • The allegations of racial bias in the selection of the jury that convicted him.

Legal Issues:

  • Identifies the specific legal questions raised in the case, including:
    • Whether the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Arguments of the Parties:

  • Summarizes the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense:
    • Prosecution: Claimed that the peremptory challenges were based on legitimate reasons, such as the jurors’ demeanor or body language.
    • Defense: Argued that the challenges were racially motivated and violated Stanford’s constitutional rights.

Court’s Ruling:

  • Explains the Supreme Court’s decision and the reasoning behind it:
    • Majority Opinion: The Court ruled that the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely on the basis of race was unconstitutional.
    • Dissenting Opinion: Some justices dissented, arguing that peremptory challenges were an essential tool for attorneys to select an impartial jury.

Impact of the Ruling:

  • Discusses the significance and impact of the Court’s ruling on future cases and the legal landscape:
    • Established a framework for challenging racial discrimination in jury selection.
    • Changed the way attorneys used peremptory challenges.

Key Points:

  • Summarizes the main points of the case in a concise and accessible manner, including:
    • The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    • The use of peremptory challenges in jury selection.
    • The Supreme Court’s ruling and its implications.

Table of Key Cases:

  • Includes a table listing other relevant cases that relate to the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection, if applicable.

Question 1:

What is the significance of the Stanford v. Kentucky case?

Answer:

Stanford v. Kentucky (2012) determined that a state cannot execute an individual who is intellectually impaired, as it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Question 2:

How did the court define intellectual impairment in Stanford v. Kentucky?

Answer:

The court defined intellectual impairment as an IQ score below 70 and significant deficits in adaptive functioning, rendering the individual unable to understand the purpose or nature of their execution.

Question 3:

What impact has Stanford v. Kentucky had on the death penalty in the United States?

Answer:

Stanford v. Kentucky has limited the use of the death penalty for individuals with intellectual impairments, leading to the resentencing of numerous death row inmates and the adoption of stricter standards for determining intellectual disability.

Well there you have it, the Stanford v Kentucky case in a nutshell. It’s not the most exciting stuff, but it’s a pretty interesting case, and it could end up having a pretty big impact on the way that college athletes are treated in the future. Thanks for reading, and be sure to come back for more updates later!

Leave a Comment