ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµCondemns Pentagon Plan to Livestream Firing Squad Execution
NEW YORK – Yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon was planning to livestream the firing squad execution of former Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan for the killing of 13 people in a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood. The execution would be the military’s first execution in more than six decades.
Yasmin Cader, deputy executive director at the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ, had the following statement:
“The death penalty is cruel, immoral, and does nothing to advance public safety. Turning an execution into a public spectacle only exposes that cruelty and violence. Instead of moving us towards a world that is leaving this barbaric practice behind as the American public increasingly wants, the Trump administration plans to make entertainment out of this shameful practice. Authoritarian and extremist governments use public displays of violence to project a false sense of power. That is not who we are. Enough is enough. We must end the death penalty once and for all.�
Related ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ
Related Content
-
News & CommentaryOct 2026
Civil Liberties
+4 ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ
This Supreme Court Term: Our Rights And Freedoms At Stake. Explore News & Commentary.This Supreme Court Term: Our Rights and Freedoms at Stake
The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµcould have its busiest Supreme Court term ever, with potential cases on immigration, voting rights, and religious freedom in schools.By: Cecillia Wang -
Press ReleaseOct 2026
Capital Punishment
Nh Supreme Court Rules “disproportionality� Of Death Penalty For Only Man On Death Row Cannot Be Reviewed. Explore Press Release.NH Supreme Court Rules “Disproportionality� of Death Penalty for Only Man on Death Row Cannot be Reviewed
CONCORD, N.H. – The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled today that the “disproportionalityâ€� of the death penalty cannot be reviewed for Michael Addison, a Black man convicted in 2008 of killing a white police officer. Addison is the only person on the state’s death row and was sentenced to die prior to New Hampshire’s repeal of the death penalty in 2019. Today’s decision is not the last word on the legality of this execution, including whether it is constitutional in light of the legislature’s repeal of the death penalty. “Today is a sad day that could lead New Hampshire down the path of becoming the first and only state to execute someone under a repealed death penalty statute,â€� said Gilles Bissonnette, Legal Director of the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof New Hampshire. “New Hampshire repealed the death penalty in 2019 because it is inhumane, unjust, racist, and error-prone—things that are all still true today. The penalty of death cannot be proportionate in this case when someone convicted of an identical crime today would not receive the death penalty. While today's decision ignores this reality, the fight against the death penalty in this case will continue.â€� The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµand several death penalty scholars submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in this case in October 2025, urging the New Hampshire Supreme Court to disallow this execution from ever taking place and highlighting that New Hampshire could become the first and only state to execute someone under a repealed death penalty statute. "It is extremely disappointing that the Court did not take this opportunity to address the disproportionate and inequitable death sentence imposed on Mr. Addison, the only person on New Hampshire’s death row and a Black man,â€� said Megan Byrne, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project. “New Hampshire repealed the death penalty in 2019 because it recognized that the punishment is unjust, inhumane, and infected with racial bias. Mr. Addison's case puts those very problems on full display. New Hampshire should not move backward by defending a sentence under a law it has already rejected." The brief also asked the Court to consider the ways that racism contributed to Addison’s death sentence, saying, “this Court should consider the legion of social science research explaining the ways that race likely contributed to the death sentence of a poor, Black man who did not ‘purposefully kill’ the victim, particularly when the sentence came in the same year that a rich, white man was given a life sentence after purposefully bludgeoning someone to death with a sledgehammer alongside two others he had hired to kill the victim.â€� The decision today comes amid renewed national scrutiny of the death penalty following Tennessee’s botched execution of Christa Pike last week. The horrific execution attempt was Tennessee’s second botched execution in less than 6 months.Court Case: New Hampshire v. Michael AddisonAffiliate: New Hampshire -
Press ReleaseSep 2026
Capital Punishment
Aclu And Aclu Of Mississippi Urge Court To Consider Racial Discrimination In Willie Manning Case. Explore Press Release.ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµand ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Mississippi Urge Court to Consider Racial Discrimination in Willie Manning Case
JACKSON, Ms. – The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµ, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Mississippi, and partners filed an amicus brief today urging the Mississippi Supreme Court to consider Willie Manning’s claim that prosecutors unconstitutionally excluded Black prospective jurors from his 1994 capital trial. The brief warns that racial discrimination in jury selection was one of several alarming problems that undermine the reliability of Manning’s conviction and death sentence. At trial, prosecutors systematically excluded Black jurors from Manning’s jury, resulting in a nearly all white jury in a county where Black people made up 34% of the population. Prosecutors struck six of the nine Black prospective jurors, for reasons including that the prospective juror read “Ebonyâ€� or “Jetâ€� magazines or lived in an “extremely bad neighborhoodâ€� – in other words, a predominantly Black neighborhood. Manning’s lawyers challenged the strikes under Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court case that prohibits prosecutors from striking jurors based on race, but the trial judge accepted the prosecutor’s purportedly race-neutral explanations without conducting the proper legal analysis to determine whether they were simply pretexts for discrimination. “Juries are supposed to reflect the communities that they represent, and that’s for good reason: diverse juries deliberate more thoroughly, consider a wider range of evidence, and make fewer mistakes,â€� said Anna Arceneaux, deputy director of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project. “When racial discrimination shapes who can serve on a jury, it undermines the fairness of the entire process for the accused and for prospective jurors alike. In Mr. Manning’s case, the evidence suggests that racial discrimination played a major role in shaping the jury that decided whether he would live or die, and when a person’s life is on the line, the court cannot afford to look past that.â€� The racial discrimination in jury selection is particularly concerning in this case considering the broader questions surrounding Manning’s conviction and death sentence and known Batson violations in similar cases in Mississippi. Examples of prosecutorial misconduct, the known leading cause of wrongful convictions, run rampant throughout Manning’s case. The same district attorney who prosecuted Manning was responsible for sending several innocent people to prison who were later exonerated. At least twice in the last 7 years, the Supreme Court has sharply condemned Mississippi prosecutors' Batson violations in two cases with striking similarities to Manning’s (Flowers and Pitchford). “To date, the justice system has failed Mr. Manning,â€� said Ayanna Hill, racial justice attorney, at the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Mississippi. “We are hopeful that can change, and the Court finds that a lower court’s lack of meaningful review of a prosecutor’s jury strikes undermines the validity of a conviction and death sentence.â€� The ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµand ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Mississippi are asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to grant Manning permission to file a post-conviction relief petition to address the prosecution’s systematic and unconstitutional discrimination against Black prospective jurors. The amicus brief is available here.Affiliate: Mississippi -
Tennessee Supreme CourtAug 2026
Capital Punishment
Free Speech
Assoc. Press V. Nelsen. Explore Case.Assoc. Press v. Nelsen
Tennessee's execution policies prevent the press from witnessing critical stages before and after a state execution. However, the public needs to know how they work—or don't work—to participate in informed public debate. The ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Tennessee, filed an amicus brief explaining why a provision in the Tennessee Constitution that guarantees access to government proceedings requires greater press access to executions.Status: Ongoing