The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Utah have submitted an amicus brief to the Utah Supreme Court. The brief advocates for upholding the state constitution's protection against "unnecessary rigor" in the penal system, specifically allowing death row inmates to contest their execution methods.
Utah's Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," reflecting similar language in the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment. However, Article I, Section 9 of Utah's Constitution extends further by stating that individuals "imprisoned shall not be treated with unnecessary rigor." The ACLU argues in Menzies v. Utah Department of Corrections that this provision should enable those sentenced to death to challenge their execution method without needing to propose an alternative—a requirement imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Glossip v. Gross for federal challenges.
"The Utah Constitution’s broad protections for incarcerated people are a feature, not a bug," stated Bridget Lavender, legal fellow with the ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative. She emphasized that imposing additional barriers on those challenging execution methods contradicts both the text and unique nature of Utah's Constitution.
State law in Utah mandates lethal injection as the primary method of execution for death row inmates, with firing squad as an option under certain circumstances. Plaintiffs in this case argue that these methods violate Article I, Section 9 of the state's constitution.
Abby Cook, staff attorney for the ACLU of Utah, remarked, "The Utah Constitution provides incarcerated people with more expansive protections than the United States Constitution." She highlighted that due to the state's distinct history and constitutional text, practices involving cruel and unusual punishment or unnecessary rigor should be excluded from its criminal justice system.
For further details, readers can access the brief online at: https://www.aclu.org/cases/menzies-v-utah-department-of-corrections?document=Menzies-Amicus-Brief
