Pennsylvania Death Penalty Moratorium Controversy

By Michele Bastacky

In recent years, the constitutionality of capital punishment in certain states has been a contentious issue. Those in opposition to the death penalty often hold that it is unconstitutional because the appeal process is too long, the system for determining who receives the death penalty is arbitrary, newly manufactured lethal injections are inhumane, and it is given in a discriminatory manner. However, supporters of the death penalty often hold that if done in a humane manner, it is an acceptable form of justice for the most horrific and violent crimes.

In early February, the newly elected Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Wolf, placed a moratorium on the Pennsylvania death penalty. Governor Wolf believes that the current system is flawed, and that it creates and endless cycle of expensive and unfair court proceedings. [1]

A larger national issue about lethal injections has also contributed to this decision. In 2011, Pennsylvania ran out of sodium thiopental, a necessary ingredient in the cocktail for lethal injections. A U.S. company, Hospira, has stopped producing it, and production throughout Europe has also been stopped due to universal anti-death penalty laws. As a result, states in the U.S. that allow the death penalty have begun producing variations of the lethal injection, which has in turn lead to a number of inhumane, botched executions. [2] Also contributing to Wolf’s decision was the preparation of a report that began in 2012, and when completed will provide a more accurate account of the death penalty in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment, which will determine the financial costs of the death penalty and whether people who are wrongly convicted are being issued the death penalty, will provide this report. [3]

Wolf first put a hold on the execution of death row prisoner Terrance Williams, a convicted murderer, before extending the moratorium to all 186 state death row inmates. Wolf explained that he in no way was using this moratorium to express sympathy for death row inmates. Rather, he was expressing that the current system for the death penalty in Pennsylvania is problematic and needs to be corrected if any further executions are to be carried out in the future. Following Wolf’s actions, Pennsylvania Democratic state senator Daylin Leach proposed a bill to abolish the death penalty in Pennsylvania. [4]

Governor Wolf’s actions are not without controversy and opposition. Republicans within the state legislature oppose Wolf’s actions, and gathered on March 4th, 2015 to discuss the moratorium further. State Republicans hold that this decision prevents victims of crimes from getting the justice they deserve. Additionally, they feel that this was a politically motivated action, as Governor Wolf did not approach the legislature or the court system to address this matter; rather, he independently issued the moratorium. Furthermore, the Republicans fear that the task force charged with investigating whether or not the Pennsylvania death penalty is being carried out in a constitutional manner may be comprised of opponents of the death penalty, which in their view could lead to a bias view of the capital punishment. [5]

Just five days after Wolf made his announcement for the moratorium, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams filed a lawsuit, stating that Wolf’s moratorium was illegal and unconstitutional, which has since been granted certiorari in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.[6] Furthermore, a resolution has been introduced by Republican Representative Mike Vereb, which would ask Governor Wolf to reverse his decision and allow Pennsylvania to carry out the executions for death row inmates as scheduled. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Republican Ron Marsico, has planned two meetings; one that took place March 26th, 2015, and one that will happen in June to discuss capital punishment. The meetings are meant to relay the testimonies of the families of murder victims. Not only do the Republicans oppose Governor Wolf’s actions, but also the families of the murder victims have expressed the sentiment that this action prevents them from getting the justice they require.

Conversely, many Pennsylvania Democrats feel that Governor Wolf’s actions were warranted and advisable until a conclusion from the task force on capital punishment is reached. Although the task force was commissioned prior to Governor Wolf’s moratorium, its investigation will proceed as planned, and will allow for Pennsylvania to make critical decisions on whether capital punishment will continue and/or if reforms will first be needed before allowing the law to continue. The report that will detail the task force’s findings is not due to be completed until next year. [7]

References: 

1. Wallace McKelvey. "Gov. Tom Wolf Declares Moratorium on Death Penalty in Pa." Penn Live. The Patriot News, 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.
2. Lopez, German. "Pennsylvania Governor Temporarily Suspends Death Penalty." Vox. Vox Media, 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.
3. Jan Murphy. "Pa.'s Death Penalty Moratorium Not Likely to Be Lifted Soon." Penn Live. The Patriot News, 30 Mar. 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.
4. Wallace McKelvey. "Gov. Tom Wolf Declares Moratorium on Death Penalty in Pa." Penn Live. The Patriot News, 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.
5. Jan Murphy. "Gov. Tom Wolf's Death Penalty Moratorium Not Sitting Well with Crime Victims, Others." Penn Live. The Patriot News, 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.
6. The Associated Press. "Wolf's Death Penalty Halt Was Illegal, Philly DA Argues in Lawsuit." Penn Live. The Patriot News, 18 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.
7. Jan Murphy. "Pa.'s Death Penalty Moratorium Not Likely to Be Lifted Soon." Penn Live. The Patriot News, 30 Mar. 2015. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.

Impact of Individual State Laws Regarding Undocumented Immigrants

By Caitlin Barbas

As the battle over immigration and President Obama’s executive action continues, states are increasingly forced to choose sides. States supporting the Obama administration’s stance have taken action, both before and after the executive order, to assist the integration of undocumented immigrants into their respective societies. States in opposition, however, have retained their policies or enacted newer, increasingly strict policies. The differing laws of states throughout the nation hinder the ability of the federal government to create an effective system to confront the politically-dividing issue.

President Obama’s executive action provides undocumented parents of American citizens work permits and deportation deferrals, while also expanding the DREAMers program.[1] The President’s action, however, has faced a pushback from multiple states. In February 2015, federal Judge Andrew Hanen, issued a temporary court order to halt the implementation of the executive action.[2] The Justice Department responded with an appeal of Hanon’s court order, bringing the case to the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court for Appeals in New Orleans.[3]

This legal battle has left individual states with differing policies regarding undocumented immigrants. These discrepancies can be seen in measures such as obtaining drivers’ licenses, attending college, and obtaining work visas. A recent New York Times article highlights the differences in integration of the undocumented populations in Washington and Texas. These two states, have remained at the forefront of the fight over the implementation of executive action. Washington leads a coalition of 14 states plus the District of Columbia, which support the Obama Administration. Since the 1990’s, undocumented immigrants in Washington have been allowed to obtain drivers’ licenses and undocumented students have been able to attend college at state resident tuition rates since 2003.[4]  Texas, one of the leaders of the 26 states against the executive action, requires a social security number to obtain a license.[5]

California, both legally and socially, has experienced a significant increase in public support for integration of undocumented immigrants. In a poll released in March 2015 by the Public Policy Institute of California, California voters favored providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants when the immigrants met requirements, such as paying back-taxes, passing criminal background checks, and learning English.[6]

The contrasting laws of state legislatures have left the immigration policies of the United States in disarray. President Obama’s executive action, due to implementation delays, has exaggerated these differences. Referencing these divisions, Kamala D. Harris, the Attorney General of California, stated, “We acknowledge in California what we have to acknowledge as a country… they’re here and we’re not going to deport them. Let’s figure out how to transition them in and get them to the point of assimilating.”[7] As can be seen through the stark differences between states supporting the executive actions and those who oppose it, the legal battles over the implementation of the executive action immigration plan has resulted in the inability of the United States government to create an efficient and functioning immigration system.

[1] Preston, J. (2015, March 29). States Are Divided by the Lines They Draw on Immigration. In The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/us/politics/states-are-divided-by-the-lines-they-draw-on-immigration.html?ref=us
[2] Mason, J., & Cowan, R. (2015, February 17). U.S. delays Obama’s immigration steps after judge's rebuke. In Reuters. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/17/us-usa-immigration-idUSKBN0LL0AT20150217
[3] Ibid.
[4] Preston, J. (2015, March 29). States Are Divided by the Lines They Draw on Immigration. In The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2015.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Skelton, G. (2015, March 25). Attitudes shift on illegal immigration, but unity eludes other issues. In The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-cap-california-poll-20150326-column.html
[7] Preston, J. (2015, March 29). States Are Divided by the Lines They Draw on Immigration. In The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/us/politics/states-are-divided-by-the-lines-they-draw-on-immigration.html?ref=us

The Abercrombie Case: Assumptions v. Direct Knowledge for Religious Accommodations

By Jenna Spoont

The Supreme Court heard a case on February 25th about a Muslim teenage girl who was not hired by Abercrombie “because she wears a hijab,” or headscarf, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s allegations. Headscarfs do not comply with Abercrombie’s “Look Policy.” At Abercrombie, the sales-floor employees are “referred to as ‘Model[s]’” and “must dress in clothing that is consistent with the kinds of clothing that Abercrombie sells in its stores.”[1] Part of this policy prohibits sales-floor employees from wearing black clothing and “caps” (headscarfs are not specified in the policy).

The EEOC won this freedom of religion case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided in favor of Abercrombie. Now, it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide the following issue: “Can an employer be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant based on a religious observance or practice if the employer did not have direct knowledge that a religious accommodation was required?”[2]

So, what exactly does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say? Here’s a snippet:

“Title VII of the Civil Rights of Act of 1964 makes it ‘an unlawful employment practice for an employer…to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s…religion.’”

“‘Religion’ is defined to include those ‘aspects of religious observance and practice’ that an employer is able to ‘reasonably accommodate…without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.’”

“As a result, an employer has an obligation ‘to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business.’”

Here are the facts of the case:

Before the job interview, Samantha Elauf, the job applicant, asked her friend, Farisa Sepahvand, who works at Abercrombie, whether or not Ms. Elauf could wear a headscarf at Abercrombie if she were an employee. Her friend asked an assistant manager, who said that would be fine “especially if she didn’t wear a headscarf that was black.”[3]

Ms. Elauf wore a black headscarf to her Abercrombie interview. Applicants do not have to comply with the “Look Policy” at their interviews, according to Abercrombie’s policy. An assistant manager, Heather Cooke, interviewed Ms. Elauf and did not ask her about the headscarf. Ms. Elauf also never mentioned in the interview that she wears the headscarf for religious reasons.

Ms. Elauf’s interview score was high enough for her to get the job. Ms. Cooke “assumed that [Ms. Elauf] was Muslim” and, after the interview, asked Abercrombie’s district manager, Randall Johnson, about her concern that Ms. Elauf’s headscarf does not comply with the “Look Policy.” The facts are disputed whether or not Ms. Cooke mentioned to Mr. Johnson that Ms. Elauf wore the headscarf because of her religion. According to Ms. Cooke, Mr. Johnson told her “to change Ms. Elauf’s interview score” so that “she would not be recommended for hire.” Ms. Cooke never contacted Ms. Elauf about the job. Ms. Elauf found out that she was not hired through Ms. Sepahvand. 

The Supreme Court justices seemed to lean toward the EEOC’s argument during the hearing. For example, Justice Samuel A. Alito asked a thought-provoking hypothetical to Abercrombie’s attorney, Shay Dvoretzky, whether or not Abercrombie would hire a person that wears a black blouse to an interview, “which is against the Abercrombie rules”…“on the assumption that this person likes black so much this person is going to wear black every single day?[4]” Mr. Dvoretzky responded: “I don’t think Abercrombie needs to make that assumption about what the person will do later in order to make a judgment based on the person’s appearance at the interview.”[5]

The question is one of assumption. As Justice Alito noted, “Maybe she’s just having a bad hair day so she comes in with a headscarf, but she doesn’t have any religious reason for doing it.”[6] If the employer assumes that an applicant will need a religious accommodation, is an assumption enough information? Or does the applicant need to tell the employer about his or her religious needs? Moreover, if the employer thinks that the applicant will not be okay with wearing his or her garb (i.e. a headscarf) during work, should the employer ask the applicant during an interview? Or, is that assumption treating “people differently based on their religion”? [7]

The Supreme Court will release most likely release their decision for this case this summer.

---

[1] http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/10th-cir-11-5110.pdf

[2] http://gwplsa.blogspot.com/2014/12/elonis-v-united-states-first-supreme.html

[3] http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/10th-cir-11-5110.pdf

[4] http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_14_86

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.