Conservative members of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cast doubts on the prospect of coming out in favor of convicted felons asserting that a lifetime voting ban in Mississippi represents cruel and unusual punishment as it’s stipulated in the US Constitution. This was evident during the en banc (full-bench) hearing held recently. Mississippi is known for its stringent laws that prohibit certain felons from exercising their voting rights ever again.
The conservative judges, particularly the Republican appointees of the New Orleans-based court, at the en banc argument posed serious questions about the potential ramifications of finding permanent disenfranchisement to be cruel and unusual punishment—especially for other possible applications of this legal definition. Several of these judges suggested that such weighty matters should ideally fall under the purview of legislation instead of judiciary.
Judge Kyle Duncan, appointed by former President Donald Trump, was also among the voices expressing skepticism on ruling in favor of the claimant felons, emphasizing the legislative aspect of this issue. However, the article does not go into detail about Judge Duncan’s statements. Detailed proceedings of the en banc argument are yet to be fully disclosed.
For a more comprehensive reporting on this topic, visit the original article on Bloomberglaw. Please note, access might require relevant permissions or subscription.