President Donald Trump’s administration is encountering significant resistance in its effort to expand the use of the death penalty, as federal judges block many attempts to overturn earlier decisions against pursuing capital punishment.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, who took office in February, has authorized prosecutors to seek the death penalty in 19 cases, including nine where the Biden administration had previously pursued lesser sentences. So far, judges have rejected most of these efforts, allowing only two to move forward. On Monday, two new rulings in the U.S. Virgin Islands reinforced the judiciary’s reluctance to allow reversals in cases already deep into the legal process.
The Justice Department argues that its approach fulfills a Trump campaign promise to bring back federal executions, which were suspended under Attorney General Merrick Garland. The department has accused the prior administration of substituting “personal beliefs” for justice by steering away from capital punishment in cases involving serious crimes.
Detailed rulings are still pending in the Virgin Islands cases — one involving the 2022 killing of a police officer and another tied to a 2018 armed robbery and murder. But past court decisions have harshly criticized the administration’s approach.
In June, U.S. Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland, a Trump appointee, struck down a late-stage attempt to seek the death penalty against alleged MS-13 members accused of murdering two teenage girls. Gallagher said prosecutors “leapfrogged important constitutional and statutory rights” and called the government’s actions “unacceptable.”
Procedural and Constitutional Barriers
Typically, authorization for capital prosecution happens years before trial. In Maryland, prosecutors filed their death penalty notice less than four months before proceedings were set to begin. None of the defendants had legal representation from death penalty specialists, which federal law requires in capital cases.
Gallagher wrote that the only justification for the shift was “the change in administration,” adding that the government’s “willful blindness” to the demands of capital trials was “startling.”
Federal prosecutors defended their actions, insisting that the Attorney General has the authority to reconsider earlier decisions. “Deciding not to seek certain charges is not a promise not to do so,” wrote Maryland U.S. Attorney Kelly Hayes, who described the reversal as “basic management and governance.”
Reviewing Biden-Era Decisions
Trump, whose first term saw 13 federal executions — the most in modern history — signed an order on his first day back in office requiring the Justice Department to pursue capital punishment in eligible cases. Bondi swiftly lifted the Biden-era moratorium on federal executions and launched a sweeping review of earlier cases.
That review’s 120-day deadline has already passed. A Justice Department official told The Associated Press that nearly all of the roughly 1,400 decisions not to pursue the death penalty under Garland have now been examined, with about 459 cases still active when Trump took office.
Bondi’s review mirrors Garland’s earlier approach in reverse. While Garland dropped 35 death penalty notices issued by his predecessors, Bondi has moved to reinstate capital punishment where she deems it appropriate. Officials say the review is necessary to ensure consistency and justice for victims’ families.
Broader Debate on Capital Punishment
Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, noted that Trump’s stance diverges sharply from both President Biden’s cautious approach and the trajectory of past presidents. “His enthusiasm for use of the death penalty is different not only from Biden’s, it’s different from every other president’s approach in history,” Maher said.
Courts remain divided. In some cases, judges have sided with defendants who argued they relied on assurances from the Biden administration when planning their defense strategies or plea negotiations.
One notable example came in Nevada, where prosecutors informed Cory Spurlock of their intent to pursue the death penalty just 12 days before his trial for the 2021 killings of a California couple. U.S. District Judge Miranda Du threw out the notice in May, criticizing the government’s “wholesale reversal at the eleventh hour.”
“The government decided — certainly not by inadvertence or accident — to reverse course on an issue of critical importance, involving Spurlock’s life, less than two weeks before trial,” Du wrote. She added that the move undermined both court orders and the integrity of the judicial process.
