Case Updates
-
[NEW] Strict Scrutiny podcast highlights Brenda's case.
01/27/25
Today’s episode of Strict Scrutiny again highlighted Brenda’s case, this time, about her win at the Supreme Court.
Constitutional law experts Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray explain the significance of the Court’s decision, not just for Brenda’s case, but for all criminal trials.
Listen to S6E17 at 1:11:00.
“The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act only allows federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to people who are convicted in state courts if their conviction or sentence is contrary to or unreasonably applying some clearly established Supreme Court law. And the lower courts reasoned that it wasn’t clearly established that sex-shaming someone to death, like a prosecutor using sex stereotypes to secure a conviction and death sentence, was unconstitutional. But by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court rejected that notion and held that it was, in fact, clearly established that prosecutors cannot introduce super prejudicial inflammatory evidence, including evidence that caters to sex stereotypes.”
-
[NEW] Supreme Court issues historic decision in Brenda's case!
01/21/2025
The Supreme Court granted Brenda's petition for a writ of certiorari and summarily reversed the lower court's decision. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Constitution clearly prohibits the State from introducing evidence that is so prejudicial that the criminal trial becomes fundamentally unfair. The Court also acknowledged that prosecutors introduced sex-based stereotypes throughout Brenda's trial, such as the outfits Brenda wore to dinner, the underwear she packed for vacation, testimony about her sexual history, and how good mothers ought to behave. Brenda's case will now return to the Tenth Circuit, where she will have a new opportunity to show that the sex-shaming evidence that prosecutors weaponized against her at trial was indeed so prejudicial that her trial was rendered fundamentally unfair.
The Court's opinion today is historic. It sends the message that using gendered tropes to justify a conviction and death sentence is intolerable, and that the Constitution provides protections for those who do not follow rigid gender norms.
-
Brenda's case is relisted an eleventh time.
01/13/2025
The Supreme Court relisted Brenda’s case for an eleventh time. Her case has been redistributed for the Friday, January 17 conference.
-
Brenda's case is relisted a tenth time.
01/06/2025
The Supreme Court relisted Brenda’s case for a tenth time. Her case has been redistributed for the Friday, January 10 conference.
-
Brenda's case is relisted a ninth time.
12/09/2024
The Supreme Court relisted Brenda’s case for a ninth time. Her case has been redistributed for the Friday, December 13 conference.
-
Brenda's case is relisted an eighth time.
11/25/2024
The Supreme Court relisted Brenda’s case for an eighth time. Her case has been redistributed for the Friday, December 6 conference.
-
Brenda's case is relisted a seventh time.
11/18/2024
The Supreme Court relisted Brenda’s case for a seventh time. Her case has been redistributed for the Friday, November 22 conference.
-
Brenda's case is relisted a sixth time.
11/12/2024
The Supreme Court relisted Brenda’s case for a sixth time. Her case has been redistributed for the Friday, November 15 conference.
-
Brenda's case is relisted a fifth time.
11/04/2024
The Supreme Court relisted Brenda’s case this morning for the fifth time. Her case has been redistributed for the Friday, November 8 conference.
-
Brenda's case is relisted a fourth time.
10/21/2024
The Supreme Court again relisted Brenda’s case after its conference on Friday. This is the fourth relist of her case.
-
Brenda's case is relisted again.
10/15/2024
This morning, the Supreme Court relisted Brenda's case for a third time. The Court has scheduled her case for another discussion on Friday, October 18.
-
Brenda's case is relisted.
10/07/24
Today, the Supreme Court relisted Brenda's case and scheduled another discussion for Friday, October 11. Different from a reschedule, a "relist" occurs when the Justices actually consider a cert petition at consecutive conferences and also indicates heightened interest.
-
The Supreme Court is back in session.
09/13/24
The Supreme Court's new term begins soon. The Justices will meet for their first conference on Monday, September 30, 2024, where we anticipate Brenda's case will be discussed. The Court will then issue its order list on Monday, October 7.
-
The Court requests the record from Brenda's case.
07/03/24
The Supreme Court requested the record, which includes the transcripts and filings from her trial and appeals, indicating the Justices' keen interest in Brenda's case.
-
Brenda's case is held over to the next term.
07/02/24
After being distributed for conference 12 times since March, Brenda’s cert petition was again not addressed by the Supreme Court in today’s orders list--the final one of this term. The Court will be in recess until the Fall.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case a tenth time.
06/10/24
Today, the Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of Brenda’s case for a tenth time.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case a ninth time.
06/04/2024
Today, the Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of Brenda’s case for a ninth time.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case an eighth time.
05/28/2024
Today, the Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of Brenda’s case for an eighth time.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case a seventh time.
05/20/2024
Today, the Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of Brenda's case for a seventh time.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case a sixth time.
05/14/2024
Today, the Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of Brenda’s case for a sixth time. The next potential conference date would be Thursday, May 23.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case a fifth time.
05/06/2024
Today, the Supreme Court reschedued its consideration of Brenda’s case for a fifth time. The next potential conference date woud be Thursday, May 16.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case a fourth time.
04/22/2024
Today, the Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of Brenda’s case for a fourth time. The next potential conference date would be Thursday, May 9.
-
The Meteor writes about the importance of Brenda's case.
04/19/2024
In a new piece released this week, Neda Toloui-Semnani of The Meteor writes about the gender bias and prosecutorial misconduct that infected Brenda’s trial.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case a third time.
04/16/2024
Today, the Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of Brenda’s case for a third time, after previously scheduling it for its March 28, April 12, and April 19 conferences.
-
U.S. Supreme Court distributes Brenda's case for conference.
04/15/2024
The Supreme Court has distributed Brenda’s case for its Friday, April 19 conference. This comes after two previous reschedules.
-
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case a second time.
04/09/2024
Today, the Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of Brenda’s case for a second time, after previously scheduling it for March 28 and April 12.
-
U.S. Supreme Court distributes Brenda's case for conference.
04/08/2024
The Supreme Court has distributed Brenda’s case for its Friday, April 12 conference. This comes after one previous reschedule.
-
The New York Times writes about prosecutors' sex shaming in Brenda's case.
04/01/2024
In a new piece released today, Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times Adam Liptak writes about Brenda’s case:
”Later this month, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Ms. Andrew’s appeal, which said the display of her underwear was a representative part of an unrelenting strategy by prosecutors, as a dissenting judge put it, ‘of introducing evidence that has no purpose other than to hammer home that Brenda Andrew is a bad wife, a bad mother and a bad woman.’” -
U.S. Supreme Court reschedules its conference of Brenda's case.
03/26/2024
The Supreme Court initially scheduled its conference of Brenda’s case for March 28, 2024. Today, the Court rescheduled, indicating that at least one Justice has taken an interest in Brenda’s case.
-
Former federal prosecutor sharply criticizes the "blatant sexism" in Brenda's case.
03/22/2024
In a new piece released today in The Oklahoman, former federal prosecutor Miriam Krinsky writes about the “deeply disturbing sexism exhibited throughout [Brenda’s] trial.” Krinsky criticizes the gender bias and prosecutorial overreach that led to Brenda’s conviction and death sentence, and further examines the broader gender bias in Oklahoma’s criminal legal system.
-
Strict Scrutiny podcast highlights Brenda's case.
03/18/2024
Today’s episode of Strict Scrutiny highlights Brenda’s case and the “shocking instances of gender bias” that led to her conviction and sentence.
Constitutional law professors Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray discuss how prosecutors “secured a jury verdict by playing to sexist stereotypes,” why this case is so important, and why the U.S. Supreme Court should grant Brenda’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
Listen to S5E27 at 1:04:07.
-
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights calls on the U.S. to refrain from carrying out Brenda’s execution.
02/26/2024
After learning of Ms. Andrew’s petition and reviewing the facts of Ms. Andrew’s case, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) concluded that “there is a serious and urgent risk of irreparable harm to Ms. Andrew’s right to life and personal integrity.” The Commission has called on the United States to refrain from carrying out Ms. Andrew’s execution and to “adopt necessary measures to protect [her] life” while it considers the application of binding human rights law to her case.
-
Numerous gender justice organizations and scholars condemn the gross injustice in Brenda’s case.
02/26/2024
“This case represents the most severe consequence of the gender prejudice and bias that . . . continues to permeate the criminal justice system.”
Supporters include:
Battered Women’s Justice Project
Gender Justice
Legal Momentum, the Women’s Legal Defense Fund
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Transgender Law Center
Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund
Women’s Law Project
-
Legal scholars recognize the unconstitutionality of Brenda’s conviction and sentence and call on the US Supreme Court to hear her case.
02/26/2024
Experts in constitutional law, habeas corpus, and capital punishment write that “Ms. Brenda Andrew was convicted and sentenced to death based on irrelevant evidence which served no purpose other than to sway the jury using sex-based stereotypes.” Together, they call on the US Supreme Court to grant Brenda’s petition for certiorari or summarily reverse her case.
-
Former federal judge, prosecutors, and professors tell the U.S. Supreme Court that Brenda was deprived of a fair trial.
02/22/2024
A group of prosecutors, a former federal judge, and numerous legal scholars on gender bias and criminal law called on the Supreme Court to accept Brenda’s case for review, writing “The prosecution’s leitmotif of gender deviance was an implicit theme and an explicit exhortation at trial: because Ms. Andrew did not behave as a “virtuous” woman should, the jury should convict her and subject her to the harshest punishment possible . . . Until these prosecutorial tactics are eradicated from American courtrooms, justice is likely to remain a lottery while so much depends on the woman’s fulfillment of society’s expectations.”
-
Brenda petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case.
01/22/2024
Brenda asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case. This would be Brenda’s last court appeal.
Brenda’s petition to hear her case emphasizes how the prosecution weaponized her gender to obtain her conviction and death sentence. It notes that the Tenth Circuit’s decision was remarkable in many ways, including that it concluded the U.S. Constitution placed no limit on the admission of irrelevant and inflammatory evidence evincing gender bias.