High Court Won’t Hear Suit by Anti-Death Penalty Judge Who’s Barred from Overseeing Execution-Related Cases 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place a decision dismissing a lawsuit filed by a judge in Arkansas who was barred from overseeing execution-related cases after he participated in an anti-death penalty demonstration.

The justices said Tuesday that they wouldn’t get involved in the lawsuit filed by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen.

Wendell Griffen, Austin Porter, Jr.

FILE – In this Aug. 17, 2018, file photo, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen holds a copy of the U.S. Constitution at a news conference in Little Rock, Ark.  (AP Photo/Andrew DeMillo, File)

Griffen participated in an anti-death penalty demonstration outside the governor’s mansion in 2017 during which he was photographed laying on a cot wearing an anti-death penalty button. Earlier that day, Griffen blocked Arkansas from using a lethal injection drug over the claims that the state misled a medical supply company.

Arkansas’ highest court removed Griffen from that case and prohibited him from hearing death penalty cases. Griffen sued, but a federal appeals court dismissed the case.

Democracy needs journalism it can trust.

This election season, the stakes are higher than usual — and so is the pressure on newsrooms to soften their coverage, stay quiet, or just disappear. Independent reporting, the kind that answers to readers instead of advertisers or political pressure, matters more in a moment like this, not less.

For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate owner and no shareholders telling us what to cover or how to cover it. That independence is also our biggest vulnerability: nothing protects it except readers choosing to fund it directly.

Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under in a moment like this, it's rarely the independent, reader-funded ones that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top