Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit a state from executing a death-sentenced prisoner after systemic failures in postconviction counsel representation and due process protections

No question identified. : To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: The State of Florida has scheduled the execution of Petitioner, Bryan F. Jennings, for Thursday, November 13, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. The Florida Supreme Court denied state court relief as well as Mr. Jennings’ request for stay on November 6, 2025. Mr. Jennings respectfully requests that this Court stay his execution, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), pending consideration of his concurrently filed petition for a writ of certiorari. STANDARDS FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION The standards for granting a stay of execution are well established. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895 (1983). There “must be a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court’s decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.” Jd. (quoting White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers). PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED A STAY OF EXECUTION A stay of execution is warranted because the questions raised in Mr. Jennings’ petition for a writ of certiorari are substantial and meritorious. The petition presents serious constitutional questions that reach the core of this Court’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and demand review before the State carries out an irreversible execution. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 158 (1976). If the stay is denied, Mr. Jennings will suffer irreparable harm. The balance of equities weighs overwhelmingly in favor of preserving his life until this Court can determine whether Florida’s process comports with the Constitution. Florida’s interest in finality is outweighed by Mr. Jennings’ continuing interest in life and his right to be executed, if at all, under constitutionally valid procedures. See Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 289 (1998) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“It is incorrect ... to say that a prisoner has been deprived of all interest in his life before his execution.”). Mr. Jennings’ case raises interrelated constitutional issues of exceptional importance. First, Florida’s failure to ensure continuous postconviction counsel violates due process and the constitutional guarantee of meaningful access to the courts and denies Mr. Jennings of his protected property right in that continuous representation. Although state law mandates continuous state postconviction representation for all death-sentenced prisoners,! Mr. Jennings was left with no representation in state courts for more than three years. This systemic failure transforms Florida’s statutory promise into a right without a remedy and offends the basic due process principle that a condemned prisoner must have a fair and meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 58 (1932). The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require reliability in capital proceedings, 1 §§ 27.7001, 27.711(2), Fla. Stat. not perfunctory compliance. Proffitt v. Wainwright, 685 F.2d 1227, 1253 (11th Cir. 1982). When the State abdicates its statutory responsibility to ensure representation, and then imposes impossible deadlines under a death warrant, it deprives the condemned of the process and advocacy that are indispensable to constitutional reliability. Second, as detailed in Jennings’ petition for a writ of certiorari, Florida’s current capital sentencing scheme violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ demand for fairness, consistency, and evolving standards of decency. Florida now stands as an outlier among death penalty jurisdictions. The defects extant in Florida’s entire capital sentencing and execution regime, taken together, create a constitutionally intolerable risk of arbitrari