Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Thomas Creech v. Idaho

IFP petition · Supreme Court of Idaho, No. 52327 · judgment November 5, 2024


Certiorari denied · October 6, 2025

Question presented

In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947), a four-Justice plurality of this Court permitted the state of Louisiana to electrocute a Black teenager under the Eighth Amendment after it tried and failed once before. The decisive fifth vote in Resweber came from Justice Frankfurter and was premised on his view that the Eighth Amendment was not incorporated against the States, see id. at 470–71 (Frankfurter, J., concurring), a proposition rejected by the Court fifteen years later, see Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666–67 (1962). Justice Frankfurter further noted how “strong” his “personal feeling of revulsion” was at the “State’s insistence on its pound of flesh.” Resweber, 329 U.S. at 471 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The Resweber opinion was released eleven years before this Court centered its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence on “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958). In the seventy-eight years that have elapsed since Resweber, this Court has never again taken up the question of whether multiple execution attempts can violate the Eighth Amendment. During the modern era of the death penalty, only two inmates have ever been executed after surviving an earlier attempt, out of more than 1,600 prisoners who have been put to death during the same period of time. In both cases, states used a different method than the one that had previously failed. Petitioner Thomas Creech is the only American inmate since Willie Francis who has been threatened by the same execution method used against him once before. Because “Resweber . . . remains good law,” the Idaho Supreme Court rebuffed Mr. Creech’s Eighth Amendment claim in the absence of an evidentiary hearing and without any consideration of the evolving standards of decency. Creech v. State, 558 P.3d 723, 733 (Idaho 2024). The question presented is: Should Resweber be overruled? PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI – Page i

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jonah Joshua Horwitz
Federal Defender Services of ldaho

For respondent
L. LaMont Anderson
Idaho Attorney General's Office

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
24A688

Proceedings

  1. Oct 06 2025
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jul 17 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
  3. Jul 11 2025
    Reply of petitioner Thomas Creech filed. (Distributed)
  4. Jun 27 2025
    Brief of respondent Idaho in opposition filed.
  5. Jun 24 2025
    Motion of Idaho for an extension of time not accepted for filing. (June 26, 2025)
  6. May 23 2025
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including June 27, 2025.
  7. May 21 2025
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 28, 2025 to June 27, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
  8. Apr 24 2025
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 28, 2025.
  9. Apr 23 2025
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 28, 2025 to May 28, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
  10. Mar 26 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 28, 2025)
  11. Jan 10 2025
    Application (24A688) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 3, 2025 to April 4, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.
  12. Jan 15 2024
    Application (24A688) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until April 4, 2025.