WASHINGTON, DC — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that witch-burning should be deemed constitutional, provided the accused is given a meaningful opportunity to confess before combustion. The majority 6-3 opinion emphasized that due process was satisfied so long as the condemned individual is allowed to state, clearly and on record, that they are either a witch or “looking into it.”
The conservative majority described the decision as “revisiting the 17th century for fresh ideas,” after weakening the Voting Rights Act the very same day. Both rulings remove individual protections for citizens while offering what critics argue is only a symbolic display of justice.
Legal analysts were quick to point out the Court’s growing comfort with dismantling longstanding protections so long as a procedural formality remains intact, noting that as long as there’s a checkbox somewhere in the process, the outcome can look suspiciously like the thing the protections were originally designed to prevent.
Under the new witch-burning framework, the Court clarified that while the state may not physically compel confessions, it may “strongly encourage” them through community chanting, ominous bell tolling, or passive-aggressive placement of firewood. Critics argued that this standard effectively allows extreme practices as long as they are preceded by speech.
Supporters of the decision insisted the comparison to voting laws is overblown. “No one is saying people should be burned arbitrarily,” said one defender. “They just need to demonstrate they’re not witches, perhaps by filling out a few forms, providing a government issued ID, traveling a reasonable distance, or locating documentation that may or may not be valid.”
Dissenting voices warned that the Court’s logic risks blurring the line between regulating harmful conduct and protecting speech. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of three dissenting justices, had argued that states should retain authority to regulate medieval punishment regimes.
PLEASE SHARE OUR CONTENT BELOW…
