Flute v. State of Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles

Plaintiff Flute, a death row inmate in Alabama, filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles challenging the constitutionality of its clemency review process. With an execution date approaching, Flute sought commutation of his death sentence, but the Board denied his application after a summary review without providing a live hearing or detailed reasoning. He alleged that this opaque procedure deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Board, represented by Attorney General Steve Marshall, argued that clemency decisions are purely discretionary acts of executive grace and are not subject to extensive judicial scrutiny. On April 12, 2023, the district court ruled on the matter, emphasizing the historical deference afforded to clemency determinations.

The district court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that the Board’s clemency decisions are inherently discretionary and not subject to extensive judicial review. The court found that the existing procedures provided sufficient minimal due process.

Whether the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles’ clemency review process for death row inmates, conducted without a full evidentiary hearing or detailed explanation of its decision, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ruling reaffirmed the broad, nearly unreviewable discretion of pardon and parole boards in Alabama, significantly limiting death row inmates’ ability to challenge adverse clemency rulings in federal court. It sparked renewed debate among legal scholars and advocacy groups over the lack of transparency and procedural safeguards in capital clemency proceedings.