Finally, a legal victory against the death penalty
But on April 17, Klapper handed down a stunning indictment of his state's death penalty that would make any abolitionist proud. It is as comprehensive a criticism as has ever handed down from the bench, and highlights a path forward for what I call 'death penalty swing states.'
Those states have the death penalty on the books but no longer execute anyone — and there are lots of them. Some are red states like Kansas and Ohio; some, like California, are deep blue. All of them are stuck in a kind of death penalty limbo.
In Kansas, as the Death Penalty Information center notes, the practice 'has been abolished and reinstated three times' since 1907. No execution has been carried out there since 1965, and no one has received a death sentence since 2016. Currently, there are nine people awaiting execution in the Jayhawk state.
In October 2024, two people, Antoine Fielder and Hugo Villanueva, brought forward a suit claiming that the Kansas death penalty 'constitutes a legally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment' and violates both the state and federal constitutions. They argued that it 'has outlived any conceivable use … [and] is imperfect in its application, haphazard in its result, and of negligible utility.'
At hearings convened by Klapper, American Civil Liberties Union lawyers representing Fielder and Villanueva presented testimony from a series of nationally known death penalty experts about racial and gender bias, problems in jury selection, the death penalty's economic costs, and whether it deters.
They also put forth a 'targeted challenge to a unique aspect of capital trials known as death qualification,' according to public radio — 'a rule requiring that anyone serving on a capital jury must believe state execution is a valid form of punishment.'
'Under death qualification,' the report states, 'a juror who says they oppose the death penalty on principle is automatically struck. Critics say the practice is discriminatory because some types of people are more likely to be excluded from juries than others.'
The ACLU contends that 'This practice disproportionately discriminates against Black people, women, and people of faith.'
The state cross-examined the expert witnesses but offered no experts of its own. And it argued there was 'no longer a case for the court to consider' since 'the death penalty cannot be a possible punishment' for either of the defendants, and 'the proper way to abolish the death penalty would be to urge legislators to change or repeal the law itself.'
Ultimately, Klapper was convinced that 'a defendant may not challenge the constitutionality of a statute … if it does not affect him but may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally in other circumstances.' But what looked like a defeat for Fielder and Villanueva was a total victory for death penalty abolitionists. The judge incorporated the expert testimony almost verbatim, calling it 'decidedly persuasive and well-reasoned.'
Klapper's opinion put aside the 'moral issues' surrounding the death penalty, focusing instead on the very issues the ACLU had highlighted.
Starting with capital punishment's financial costs, he found that, across the nation, capital cases cost on average '$700,000 more than non-capital cases.' In Kansas alone, 'More than $4 million has been spent with the results being no death penalty sentences and zero executions.'
Beyond their costliness, Klapper determined that 'The factors which distinguish death sentence cases from non-death sentence cases are the race and gender of the victim, and the race and gender of the defendant.' Murder cases involving white and female victims, the judge found, are much more likely to result in capital prosecutions.
And, if that were not enough, Klapper concluded that 'The scientific community has found no reliable evidence of the death penalty being a deterrent to homicides.'
Throughout, his opinion is pragmatic rather than ideological; it offers people in death penalty swing states a way forward by emphasizing the fairness of the death penalty process and its costs and benefits. As Klapper puts it, they should question the 'propriety' of keeping a death penalty as a possible punishment when the state will 'never impose it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A $200 million endowment focused on Black Americans is taking shape
Started in 2020 as a five-year initiative inspired by the racial justice outcry following the police murder of George Floyd, the California Black Freedom Fund plans to expand to a $200 million endowment. The move is both rare in the world of philanthropy and politically bold, given the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate race-based grant making. Originally a designated fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the fund spun off on July 1, renaming itself the Black Freedom Fund, to indicate its new national scope. Over the past five years, it has drawn more than $97 million in donations. Of that, it has directed $45 million to 206 nonprofits in California, largely working to increase the sway of nonprofits that serve Black people, with a portion of the remainder being reserved to start the endowment. Marc Philpart, the fund's executive director, said the endowment will let the fund make grants of $10 million a year without cutting into its asset base, assuming historical rates of return on investments. By establishing a durable institution with a sizable reservoir of cash, the fund can serve as a lasting beacon to smaller organizations serving Black communities in California, Philpart said. 'When a crisis occurs in the Black community, philanthropy parachutes in, there's a wave of support, and then as soon as the news cameras turn away, the support recedes,' he said. 'We need enduring institutions that are led by and committed to the Black community in ways that have a lasting impact.' DEI targeted Philpart's fundraising for the endowment comes as the Trump administration has characterized diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as illegal and has called for investigations of large foundations that support diversity programs. Under Philpart's leadership, the California Black Freedom Fund started the Legal Education, Advocacy, and Defense for Racial Justice Initiative, which provides pro bono legal consulting and training for nonprofits. The program operates on the premise that there isn't anything illegal about racial justice funding. But the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against considering race in college admissions, in a pair of cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, was viewed by some as an indication that private philanthropies could not legally engage in race-based grant making — and the issue is far from settled. While Philpart's fundraising pitch might resonate with some donors, others are sure to be nervous, given the scrutiny placed on race-based grant making by the White House, said Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, a litigation and advocacy nonprofit that has challenged affirmative action programs. The White House has directed the Department of Justice to root out instances of race-based grantmaking, which it considers discriminatory. 'You don't want to be on their radar because they are fervently looking for people to make examples of at this point,' Morenoff said. While some corporations and philanthropies, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an early supporter of the California Black Freedom Fund, have retreated from supporting racial justice, Philpart is counting on securing support from donors who want to stay with the cause even as the issue is argued in various court cases stemming from Trump's anti-DEI executive orders. The attacks from the administration, Philpart said, have been a 'clarifying moment' for many donors and have generated interest in the fund. 'People have rallied to us and really doubled down on their commitments to support Black freedom and Black power,' he said. 'That is the most telling thing coming out of this moment — that there is a critical mass of leaders throughout the country who care very deeply about the community.' 70 financial supporters One grantmaker that has doubled down is the California Wellness Foundation. The foundation made an initial grant of $500,000 when the fund was first launched, then made a $200,000 commitment to a separate fund created by the California Black Freedom Fund in response to the January Los Angeles fires, and recently added $500,000 to support the spin-off. Richard Tate, president of the California Wellness Fund, said the new fund is 'needed now more than ever' because of attempts by the administration to roll back equity efforts. 'The fact that we are talking about a Black Freedom Fund is an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal standing in the culture,' he said. 'Whatever headwinds that may exist because of this political moment, now is the time for us to continue to be explicit about our intentions of supporting a community.' Philanthropy needs to act quickly by unleashing more money in grants to support areas like litigation, public advocacy, and the replacement of lost federal funds, said Glenn Harris, president of Race Forward, a nonprofit racial justice advocacy group. But, he said, lasting institutions that can respond to future challenges are also needed. 'There's a balancing act,' Harris said. 'It's really clear that struggles for liberation and justice are going to be with us for a minute.' Among the two dozen grant makers that chipped in to start the fund are the Akonadi, Conrad Hilton and San Francisco foundations as well as the Emerson Collective, Crankstart, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The total of institutional funders to the effort since 2020 now exceeds 70. Why endowments Among the groups the fund has supported are the East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative, a community-owned cooperative that 'removes land and housing from the speculative market and places it into permanent community stewardship,' according to the fund. A late 2023 survey of nearly 300 foundations conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy found that more than two thirds of grantmakers did not offer endowment grants. Half of those that did so made them to arts organizations and museums. Nonprofits led by Black people receive endowment grants even more rarely, according to a 2022 analysis of social change organizations by the Bridgespan Group, a philanthropy consultancy, which found that nonprofits led by Black people had endowments that were only a fourth as big as those led by white people. Since then, some grant makers have stepped forward to support endowments at organizations serving members of Black communities, said Darren Isom, a partner at Bridgespan. For instance, in 2022 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation made grants of $5 million each to three racial justice organizations led by people of color: UnidosUS, the NAACP, and Faith in Action. 'Endowments are transfer of power from philanthropic organizations to the organizations that are closest to the work,' he said. 'From an impact perspective, the work is more high impact, more beneficial, and more durable if it's owned by and led by those that are the closest to issues and closest to the communities.' Philpart is confident that despite the blow-back against diversity and racial justice, the fund can raise enough money to meet its goal. 'We're drawing people out who want to prove we are greater than divisiveness, we are greater than bigotry, and we are a greater than racism,' he said. 'We are better than all the things that pull us apart and don't fundamentally improve anyone's well-being.'
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
A $200 million endowment focused on Black Americans is taking shape
Started in 2020 as a five-year initiative inspired by the racial justice outcry following the police murder of George Floyd, the California Black Freedom Fund plans to expand to a $200 million endowment. The move is both rare in the world of philanthropy and politically bold, given the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate race-based grant making. Originally a designated fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the fund spun off on July 1, renaming itself the Black Freedom Fund, to indicate its new national scope. Over the past five years, it has drawn more than $97 million in donations. Of that, it has directed $45 million to 206 nonprofits in California, largely working to increase the sway of nonprofits that serve Black people, with a portion of the remainder being reserved to start the endowment. Marc Philpart, the fund's executive director, said the endowment will let the fund make grants of $10 million a year without cutting into its asset base, assuming historical rates of return on investments. By establishing a durable institution with a sizable reservoir of cash, the fund can serve as a lasting beacon to smaller organizations serving Black communities in California, Philpart said. 'When a crisis occurs in the Black community, philanthropy parachutes in, there's a wave of support, and then as soon as the news cameras turn away, the support recedes,' he said. 'We need enduring institutions that are led by and committed to the Black community in ways that have a lasting impact.' DEI targeted Philpart's fundraising for the endowment comes as the Trump administration has characterized diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as illegal and has called for investigations of large foundations that support diversity programs. Under Philpart's leadership, the California Black Freedom Fund started the Legal Education, Advocacy, and Defense for Racial Justice Initiative, which provides pro bono legal consulting and training for nonprofits. The program operates on the premise that there isn't anything illegal about racial justice funding. But the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against considering race in college admissions, in a pair of cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, was viewed by some as an indication that private philanthropies could not legally engage in race-based grant making — and the issue is far from settled. While Philpart's fundraising pitch might resonate with some donors, others are sure to be nervous, given the scrutiny placed on race-based grant making by the White House, said Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, a litigation and advocacy nonprofit that has challenged affirmative action programs. The White House has directed the Department of Justice to root out instances of race-based grantmaking, which it considers discriminatory. 'You don't want to be on their radar because they are fervently looking for people to make examples of at this point,' Morenoff said. While some corporations and philanthropies, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an early supporter of the California Black Freedom Fund, have retreated from supporting racial justice, Philpart is counting on securing support from donors who want to stay with the cause even as the issue is argued in various court cases stemming from Trump's anti-DEI executive orders. The attacks from the administration, Philpart said, have been a 'clarifying moment' for many donors and have generated interest in the fund. 'People have rallied to us and really doubled down on their commitments to support Black freedom and Black power,' he said. 'That is the most telling thing coming out of this moment — that there is a critical mass of leaders throughout the country who care very deeply about the community.' 70 financial supporters One grantmaker that has doubled down is the California Wellness Foundation. The foundation made an initial grant of $500,000 when the fund was first launched, then made a $200,000 commitment to a separate fund created by the California Black Freedom Fund in response to the January Los Angeles fires, and recently added $500,000 to support the spin-off. Richard Tate, president of the California Wellness Fund, said the new fund is 'needed now more than ever' because of attempts by the administration to roll back equity efforts. 'The fact that we are talking about a Black Freedom Fund is an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal standing in the culture,' he said. 'Whatever headwinds that may exist because of this political moment, now is the time for us to continue to be explicit about our intentions of supporting a community.' Philanthropy needs to act quickly by unleashing more money in grants to support areas like litigation, public advocacy, and the replacement of lost federal funds, said Glenn Harris, president of Race Forward, a nonprofit racial justice advocacy group. But, he said, lasting institutions that can respond to future challenges are also needed. 'There's a balancing act,' Harris said. 'It's really clear that struggles for liberation and justice are going to be with us for a minute.' Among the two dozen grant makers that chipped in to start the fund are the Akonadi, Conrad Hilton and San Francisco foundations as well as the Emerson Collective, Crankstart, the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The total of institutional funders to the effort since 2020 now exceeds 70. Why endowments Among the groups the fund has supported are the East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative, a community-owned cooperative that 'removes land and housing from the speculative market and places it into permanent community stewardship,' according to the fund. A late 2023 survey of nearly 300 foundations conducted by the Center for Effective Philanthropy found that more than two thirds of grantmakers did not offer endowment grants. Half of those that did so made them to arts organizations and museums. Nonprofits led by Black people receive endowment grants even more rarely, according to a 2022 analysis of social change organizations by the Bridgespan Group, a philanthropy consultancy, which found that nonprofits led by Black people had endowments that were only a fourth as big as those led by white people. Since then, some grant makers have stepped forward to support endowments at organizations serving members of Black communities, said Darren Isom, a partner at Bridgespan. For instance, in 2022 the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation made grants of $5 million each to three racial justice organizations led by people of color: UnidosUS, the NAACP, and Faith in Action. 'Endowments are transfer of power from philanthropic organizations to the organizations that are closest to the work,' he said. 'From an impact perspective, the work is more high impact, more beneficial, and more durable if it's owned by and led by those that are the closest to issues and closest to the communities.' Philpart is confident that despite the blow-back against diversity and racial justice, the fund can raise enough money to meet its goal. 'We're drawing people out who want to prove we are greater than divisiveness, we are greater than bigotry, and we are a greater than racism,' he said. 'We are better than all the things that pull us apart and don't fundamentally improve anyone's well-being.' ______ Alex Daniels is a senior reporter at the Chronicle of Philanthropy, where you can read the full article. This article was provided to The Associated Press by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as part of a partnership to cover philanthropy and nonprofits supported by the Lilly Endowment. The Chronicle is solely responsible for the content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit
