The U.S. Supreme Court case Jurek v. Texas in 1975 was a significant ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in Texas. The petitioner, Jerry Lane Jurek, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death under a new state law enacted after Furman v. Georgia (1972) which temporarily halted capital punishment nationwide due to its arbitrary application. In this case, the court examined whether or not this new law violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments by imposing mandatory death sentences for certain categories of murder without consideration of any mitigating factors about an individual defendant's circumstances or character traits beyond those related to crime itself. In a 7-2 decision, with Justice Stewart delivering the opinion of the court, it held that Texas' system did not violate these constitutional provisions because it allowed for individualized sentencing through bifurcated trials where guilt is determined separately from punishment; during latter phase juries could consider evidence about offender’s future dangerousness as well as other relevant facts before deciding on appropriate sentence - life imprisonment or execution.

In the dissenting opinion for Jurek v. Texas, Justice Brennan argued that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He contended that no matter how heinous the crime, capital punishment was inherently degrading to human dignity. Furthermore, he believed it was not a more effective deterrent than lesser punishments and its imposition was often arbitrary - influenced by factors such as race or socioeconomic status rather than guilt or innocence. Additionally, Justice Marshall joined him in arguing against retribution as a justification for capital punishment; they stated it only served to satisfy society's lust for revenge which should not be condoned under constitutional law.