This is bigotry by Alabama and it was reinforced by the Supreme Court. The man should have been allowed to have his iman there.
100 years from now, law students will read about this decision. It may be read alongside Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu, and the Chinese Exclusion Act cases. https://t.co/SwqM547yGV
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) February 8, 2019
For a majority that shows endless solicitude to religious claims from Catholics and Evangelicals, this is incredibly reckless. You would think they would bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of religious favoritisms. https://t.co/5OLh6Omj0l
— Joshua Block (@JoshABlock) February 8, 2019
The Court was “profoundly wrong” to summarily reject this inmate’s “claim that his religious rights will be violated at the moment the state puts him to death.” If he were a Christian, Alabama would’ve let a minister of his faith be with him to the end.https://t.co/NQwm7LRQTv
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) February 8, 2019
Imagine the uproar if a white evangelical was denied the opportunity to have a pastor that shared his faith at his execution … https://t.co/H2Wv0ZgDeU
— Eugene Scott (@Eugene_Scott) February 8, 2019
The Supreme Court believes that the 1st Amendment only protects Christians. This is a truly shocking result in what should have been a straightforward case. Shameful. https://t.co/4f9ed2h0cl
— Jake Meiseles (@Jmeiseles) February 8, 2019
A Muslim inmate who argued his religious rights were violated because Alabama would not allow his imam by his side at his execution was put to death Thursday night https://t.co/Maf87trqiy
— CNN (@CNN) February 8, 2019
This is straight up one of the most bigoted decisions the Supreme Court has handed down since Korematsu.https://t.co/fN3p4kRVtn
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) February 8, 2019
Sad! 