The Illinois Supreme Court upheld Friday former Illinois Governor George Ryan’s decision to commute the sentences of all the state’s inmates sentenced to death row.

The court ruled that the state constitution clearly gives the governor the authority to grant “reprieves, commutations and pardons” to any prisoners after conviction. The decision examined the powers held by the governor and whether he possesses the authority to grant “blanket clemency” for all those inmates given death sentences.

“[The decision] examines the authority, under the Illinois state constitution, of Illinois governors to grant clemency,” Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Charles B. Schudson, and adjunct faculty member at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said in an e-mail. “In every manner in which the governor exercised his clemency power, he was upheld.”

Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 death row inmates two days before leaving office in January of 2003. The former Republican governor argued in order to justify his decision that capital punishment is a fundamentally flawed and racist system.

The court, however, did not examine any of the justifications behind Ryan’s decision or the validity of the death penalty as a form of punishment in the American criminal justice system. Rather, the judges on the bench simply looked at whether the Illinois governor was within his rights when he commuted the death-row sentences.

“In this case, the Illinois Supreme Court is saying absolutely nothing about whether the governor was correct in his judgment. It is only saying that he had the authority to exercise clemency authority as he chose to do,” Schudson said.

The judges did argue in the opinion that they hoped future governors of the state would examine death-row sentences on a case-by-case basis rather than granting, “blanket clemency,” like Ryan did. The judges claim that though the power to grant reprieve to prisoners is extensive, it should only be granted in individual cases to “prevent miscarriages of justice.”

University of Wisconsin political science professor Donald Downs said that although he felt that the former Illinois governor’s actions were valid under the state’s constitution, they are questionable because his decision did not rest on individual cases but rather on overarching political philosophy.

“From a moral perspective it was somewhat questionable, but legally it was well within his realm,” Downs said. “In my personal opinion, I think part of what he did was politically motivated.”

The court also considered whether or not lowering the maximum sentence for a defendant constitutes the type of reprieve or pardon power granted to the governor in the state constitution. The judges determined that the governor’s pardon powers are extremely broad and his commutation of the death-row inmates’ sentences fell within that authority.

“[T]his court had recognized that the governor’s clemency powers granted by the constitution “cannot be controlled by either the courts or the legislature. His acts in the exercise of the power can be controlled only by his conscience and his sense of public duty,” Justice Robert R. Thomas wrote in the opinion.