Andrew v. White

Questions presented

SCOTUS records

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Brenda Andrew faces execution for the shooting death of her estranged husband. Her co-defendant, James Pavatt, confessed to plotting and committing the murder without her. To bolster its circumstantial case against Ms. Andrew, the State exploited sex-based stereotypes and presented concededly irrelevant evidence about her sexual history, gender presentation, demeanor, and motherhood. At trial, the prosecution relentlessly derided Ms. Andrew, using sexually-charged descriptions to cast her in the role of an unchaste wife. The State elicited testimony about Ms. Andrew’s “short skirt, low-cut tops, just sexy outfits,” “very tight” dresses, “a leather outfit” that was not “appropriate,” and otherwise “improper clothing.” The State’s sex- based argument peaked when the prosecution called Ms. Andrew a “slut puppy” and displayed her thong underwear during its guilt-phase closing argument. The State similarly fixated on Ms. Andrew’s demeanor where it did not comport with stereotypically feminine standards. In just over one day of testimony, Ms. Andrew’s demeanor and lack of tears were referenced fifteen times. Subsequently, during the penalty phase closing arguments, the State relied on Ms. Andrew’s demeanor in comparing her to stereotypes of women generally. The State invited the jury to convict and condemn Ms. Andrew to die because she was a “hoochie,” was a bad mother and wife, did not cry publicly, and otherwise failed to adhere to feminine stereotypes. Judge Johnson’s dissent at the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) observed this presentation had “no purpose other than to hammer home that Brenda Andrew is a bad wife, bad mother, and a bad woman.” Judge Bacharach’s Tenth Circuit dissent identified a “slew of errors” affecting “the fundamental fairness” of the conviction. Among these was a

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involves a dispute over property rights between Andrew and White. The central issue was whether the state law, which allowed for retroactive changes to land ownership records, violated the Constitution's Contract Clause by impairing existing contracts. Andrew argued that his contractual agreement with White should be upheld as per their original terms without interference from newly enacted legislation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Andrew, holding that the state's retroactive application of its new law unconstitutionally impaired contract obligations under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. This decision reinforced protections against legislative actions that could undermine pre-existing agreements and emphasized judicial scrutiny on laws affecting private contracts.