The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Florida’s death penalty process Tuesday in a ruling that will have a historical impact on death penalty cases past and present.

In an 8-1 ruling, justices ruled Florida’s system, which lets judges sentence felons based on a jury’s recommendation, is unconstitutional.

Barry University and Florida A&M University law professors say this latest Supreme Court ruling does not abolish the death penalty in Florida. What it does is define the jury’s and the judge’s roles in cases that can determine life or death.

There are hundreds of inmates in Florida prisons sitting on death row, including some prominent Central Florida convicts.

The cases include Michael Bargo, 21, convicted in 2013 of killing 15-year-old Seath Jackson in Marion County, and Brandon Bradley, found guilty of killing Brevard County deputy Barbara Pill last year.

Jurors in both cases recommended the death penalty. However, the judge issued the death penalty sentences in both cases.

“A jury must determine the circumstances, the facts and the aggravating factors that lead to a death penalty, and not a judge,” FAMU law professor Jeremy Levitt said.

In the majority decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:

"The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death."

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the trial judge in Florida simply performs a reviewing function that duplicates what the jury has done.

The legal community agrees this Supreme Court ruling could have an impact on cases such as Bargo’s and Bradley’s.

“Each case will probably have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to see how it affects them,” Levitt said, “and how their defense attorneys may want to use this case to make a case that the death penalty was wrongfully imposed on them.”

But now prosecutors are trying to figure out what will happen to future cases, such as Luis Toledo’s, charged with killing his wife, Yesenia Suarez and her children, Michael and Thalia Otto.

The office for Seventh Judicial Circuit State Attorney R.J. Larizza, which will prosecute that case, said it is in the process of reviewing the decision.

State Attorney Jeff Ashton with the Ninth Judicial Circuit issued this statement:

“…clearly we will handle death penalty cases in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi issued this statement Tuesday:

“In light of today’s United States Supreme Court decision holding Florida’s capital sentencing procedure unconstitutional, the state will need to make changes to its death-sentencing statutes. I will work with state lawmakers this legislative session to ensure that those changes comply with the Court’s latest decision. The impact of the Court’s ruling on existing death sentences will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”

Lawyers and law professors say Florida’s sentencing is a part of state law.

Therefore, they say legislators will have to change the law in order for sentencing requirements to change.

The case that went before the Supreme Court, Hurst v. Florida, was a 1998 murder case out of Pensacola. Timothy Lee Hurst was convicted of the murder of his manager at a Popeye's. A jury divided 7-5 in favor of death, but a judge imposed the sentence.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court sided with Hurst, saying that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment.

In Hurst's case, prosecutors asked the jury to consider two aggravating factors: the murder was committed during a robbery, and it was "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." But Florida law did not require the jury to say how it voted on each factor. Hurst's attorney argued that it was possible only four jurors agreed with one, while three agreed with the other.

Sotomayor said Florida's system is flawed, because it allows a sentencing judge to find aggravating factors "independent of a jury's fact-finding."

The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that a defendant has the right to have a jury decide whether the circumstances of a crime warrant a sentence of death.

Florida is one of three states that do not require a unanimous jury verdict when sentencing someone to death. The others are Alabama and Delaware.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.