News / FJP Releases

March 13, 2026

Fair and Just Prosecution Condemns Texas’ Execution of Cedric Allen Ricks

Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) condemns the execution of Cedric Allen Ricks by the State of Texas. FJP filed an amicus brief with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and then the United States Supreme Court in Ex Parte Cedric Allen Ricks, urging the Court to stay Mr. Rick’s execution and grant habeas relief in light of newly disclosed evidence demonstrating racial discrimination in jury selection during Mr. Ricks’s capital trial. The United States Supreme Court denied hearing the appeal, and Mr. Ricks was executed on March 11, 2026. 

Executive Director Aramis Donell Ayala issued the following statement after Texas’ execution of Cedric Ricks:

“The death penalty does not prevent crime. It fails to deter violence and instead perpetuates it under the guise of justice. That failure is compounded in cases where the accused is denied the right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers. With this execution, the state of Texas killed an individual who did not receive the protections afforded to him under the Constitution. Such a result is both legally and morally unconscionable. A legal system that permits racial discrimination in jury selection in a rush to execute its citizens cannot claim legitimacy. Ensuring fair trials free from discrimination is the only path toward a justice system worthy of its name.”

March 4, 2026

FJP Urges Texas Court to Halt Execution and Confront Racial Discrimination in Capital Jury Selection

Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) has filed an amicus brief with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex Parte Cedric Allen Ricks, urging the Court to grant habeas relief in light of newly disclosed evidence demonstrating racial discrimination in jury selection during Mr. Ricks’s capital trial.

Mr. Ricks is currently scheduled for execution on March 11, 2026.

Recently uncovered prosecutors’ jury selection notes provide stark evidence that Black prospective jurors were struck because of their race. Such conduct violates the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits the use of peremptory strikes to exclude jurors on the basis of race and establishes constitutional safeguards to prevent discrimination in jury selection.

“When racial discrimination shapes who sits on a jury, the result is not simply flawed, it is fundamentally unjust,” said FJP Executive Director Aramis Ayala. “Additionally, excluding individuals from service based on race not only violates their Equal Protection right to participate but also prevents communities from achieving full representation within this essential civic institution. When evidence demonstrates that racial discrimination tainted jury selection, courts have the obligation to set aside convictions secured through that unconstitutional discrimination.”

February 4, 2026

FJP, LEAP, and Other Law Enforcement Leaders File Supreme Court Amicus Brief Urging Strong Enforcement of Constitutional Protections Against Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP), joined by the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), current and former prosecutors, law enforcement officials, and former judges, filed an amicus brief in Pitchford v. Cain, a case the United States Supreme Court will hear this term addressing racial discrimination in jury selection and the enforcement of Batson v. Kentucky.

The brief urges the Court to correct a failure by Mississippi courts to enforce Batson v. Kentucky, the landmark decision prohibiting racial discrimination in jury selection. The brief explains that courts cannot declare a constitutional claim “waived” if a defendant lacked a fair opportunity to present it. Allowing state courts to insulate discriminatory jury strikes from judicial review represents an extreme malfunction of the criminal justice system that federal courts must step in to correct. 

“Prosecutors carry a unique responsibility to uphold the Constitution and ensure justice is administered fairly,” said FJP Executive Director Aramis Ayala. “Racial discrimination in jury selection violates that duty. It undermines fair trials, excludes citizens from civic participation, and erodes public trust. When communities believe the system is rigged, victims and witnesses disengage, accountability breaks down, and public safety suffers.”

January 28, 2026

Fair and Just Prosecution Applauds Prosecutors Standing Up to Federal Overreach and Defending Public Safety

Today’s launch of the Project for the Fight Against Federal Overreach is exactly the type of response needed to the urgent threats to public safety we have seen across the country. This national coalition of elected prosecutors committed to investigating and–where warranted–prosecuting federal agents who violate state criminal law represents leadership at its best and a clear affirmation of what public safety, prosecution, and the rule of law truly mean.

No one is above the law, including federal agents. When they exceed their lawful authority, independent local prosecutors have both the responsibility and the obligation to act. By coming together through this coalition, these prosecutors are stepping up to carry out that duty exactly as the system is designed to work.

Statement from Aramis Ayala, Executive Director of Fair and Just Prosecution

“Moments like this define leadership. As federal power expands and accountability is increasingly challenged, prosecutors stepping forward to defend constitutional rights is essential. As a former prosecutor, I know the oath to seek justice demands action, not silence, especially under pressure. This coalition reflects the courage and responsibility that the public expects from its leaders. Fair and Just Prosecution stands firmly with the prosecutors willing to meet this moment and defend the people they serve.”

January 5, 2026

FJP and Law Enforcement Officials Warn That DHS Policy Allowing Immigration Enforcement in Houses of Worship Endangers Community Trust and Undermines Public Safety

Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP), joined by the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to halt immigration enforcement actions in and around houses of worship. The brief calls on the Court to affirm the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from eliminating longstanding protections for these sensitive spaces.

For over 30 years, administrations of both parties have placed firm limits on civil immigration enforcement in houses of worship, schools, hospitals, and other places long recognized as sensitive locations because of the vital role these places play in the daily lives of families and communities. Houses of worship and other sensitive locations serve as sanctuaries of safety, security, and support, offering essential services ranging from food assistance and childcare to health care, education, counseling, and spiritual guidance. DHS reversed these restrictions in January, empowering individual Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents to carry out arrests in these areas at their own discretion, without regard to the destabilizing effect such enforcement has on community well-being.

“The decision to allow immigration arrests in sensitive locations like houses of worship, schools, and health care facilities is a direct threat to community safety,” said Aramis Ayala, Executive Director of Fair and Just Prosecution. “When people fear that attending religious services, bringing their children to school, or seeking medical care could lead to harassment, detention, or deportation, trust in law enforcement collapses. Victims stay silent, witnesses disappear, and people avoid the very institutions that people turn to in their most vulnerable moments, institutions that help keep communities healthy and stable. Public safety depends on trust and cooperation, and aggressive enforcement actions in spaces meant for care, learning, and worship destroys both.”