Disgraced former Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski is once again making headlines, this time with a provocative op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case for Firing Squads.” The piece, which aligns with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s contentious plan to execute Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan by firing squad — and livestream the event — has sparked a fresh wave of criticism and disbelief. Many are questioning not only the content of the op-ed but also why Kozinski continues to be given a platform.

Kozinski, who retired in 2017 amid multiple allegations of sexual harassment by fifteen women, including showing clerks pornography and making inappropriate sexual comments, has been on a lengthy journey to rehabilitate his public image. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, which led to the halting of a misconduct inquiry upon his retirement, Kozinski has remained active in legal circles. His attempts to regain professional standing have included representing high-profile figures such as former President Donald Trump and participating in various legal discussions and briefs.

In his latest WSJ appearance, Kozinski reiterates his long-standing argument that if the state insists on carrying out death penalties, it should abandon lethal injections in favor of more "straightforward" methods like firing squads. He criticizes the current methods of execution as cruel and unusual due to their often botched and painful nature. However, Kozinski’s fixation on the method of execution sidesteps broader ethical concerns about capital punishment itself and the particularly disturbing element of Hegseth’s plan — the proposed livestream of Hasan’s execution.

This aspect of Hegseth’s plan has drawn widespread condemnation and has placed the United States on a list with countries like Afghanistan and North Korea, where public executions are more common. Prominent figures, including Pope Leo XIV and political commentator George Will, have publicly denounced the plan. Yet, Kozinski barely touches upon these implications in his article, briefly expressing doubts about the advisability of livestreaming the execution before quickly moving on.

The op-ed's underlying motive appears less about sparking a legitimate discussion on capital punishment methods and more about continuing Kozinski’s quest to remain relevant in legal and public discourse. His selective focus on execution methods while glossing over the ethical and moral dimensions of public executions and his own controversial past raises questions about the motivations of both Kozinski and the WSJ in choosing to publish this piece.

As the date for Hasan’s scheduled execution draws near, the debate is likely to intensify. Critics argue that both the method of execution and its public broadcast are steps backward for a society grappling with complex issues of justice, ethics, and human rights. Meanwhile, Kozinski’s continued presence in high-profile legal debates ensures that discussions about his past conduct and his current viewpoints will remain intertwined.