The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state of Kansas on Wednesday, overturning a Kansas Supreme Court ruling that vacated the death sentences of three men.

The death sentences for Reginald Carr, Jonathan Carr and Sidney Gleason had been vacated in 2014 after the Kansas Supreme Court determined their Eighth Amendment rights to avoid cruel and unusual punishment were infringed upon because jurors weren’t instructed that mitigating evidence doesn’t need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Wednesday, the nation’s high court dismissed that argument in an 8-1 ruling. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the court’s majority opinion in an 18-page ruling.

"Ambiguity in capital-sentencing instructions gives rise to constitutional error only if ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence,’ a bar not cleared here," Scalia wrote.

During the sentencing phase of a trial, jurors hear aggravating factors — those introduced by the prosecution to encourage a stiffer penalty — as well as mitigating factors, introduced by the defense to encourage a lighter penalty. Aggravating factors must be found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt but mitigating factors don’t.

In a separate argument, the Carr brothers argued and the Kansas Supreme Court agreed their constitutional rights were infringed upon because they were sentenced together. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument as well.

"Joint proceedings are permissible and often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events," Scalia wrote.

"Only the most extravagant speculation would lead to the conclusion that any supposedly prejudicial evidence rendered the Carr brothers’ joint sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair when their acts of almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity were described in excruciating detail by the sole survivor, who, for two days, relived the Wichita Massacre with the jury," the justice added.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who argued on behalf of the state before the high court in October, said he was "heartened" by the decision Wednesday.

"I think the margin of this decision, eight to one, reflects the strength of the state’s case," Schmidt said.

The Carr brothers were convicted on a long list of charges following a grisly weeklong crime spree in Wichita in December 2000, which ended with the brothers shooting five victims in the back of the head at a soccer complex, killing four. Gleason was convicted of killing a young Great Bend couple in February 2004 for fear they would incriminate him in a robbery.

Schmidt said his office relayed news of the Supreme Court’s decision to friends and family members of victims Wednesday morning. The loved ones were relieved, he said.

"We are very pleased for the victims and their families," said Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett, whose office prosecuted the Carr cases. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback said he was pleased victims and their families won’t face "the horror of reliving those terrible acts" during a retrial.

The ruling elicited a series of verbal attacks Wednesday on the Kansas Supreme Court from Republicans as the court squabbles with the Legislature over education and judicial funding.

Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer said the ruling was further evidence the Kansas Supreme Court "has lost its way." House Speaker Ray Merrick said it "raises troubling concerns" about the Kansas court’s ruling. Rep. John Barker, R-Abilene, said the state’s high court is "out of step with the Constitution, the people of Kansas and reality."

U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents Wichita, commended the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling and said he was "dismayed" by how the Kansas Supreme Court "places its political agenda above the rule of law."

"This is not the first time that the Kansas Supreme Court has had to be corrected by the U.S. Supreme Court for refusing to follow the law," Pompeo said. "I hope it is the last."

Oral arguments in the Carr and Gleason cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 7. Schmidt and Solicitor General Stephen McAllister argued on behalf of the state in an attempt to have the death sentences reinstated.

During the arguments, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was skeptical of whether jurors who had previously been told evidence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt could understand mitigating evidence carries a lesser burden of proof.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was also critical, telling Schmidt that jury instructions "should be understandable to jurors."

On Wednesday, Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn’t have heard Schmidt’s appeal because there is no evidence the Kansas Supreme Court violated a federal right.

"In so doing, the court risks discouraging states from adopting valuable procedural protections even as a matter of their own state law," Sotomayor wrote. "State experimentation with how best to guarantee a fair trial to criminal defendants is an essential aspect of our federalism scheme."

Even when a state court wrongly decides a matter of federal law, Sotomayor wrote, the Supreme Court isn’t obligated to decide the case. By hearing the Carr and Gleason cases, the court denigrates states that tell jurors about the burden of proof for mitigating evidence, she argued.

Similarly, by dismissing the need for separate sentencing phases for the Carr brothers, Scalia and the court’s majority are needlessly giving instructions to several states that currently sever sentencing hearings, Sotomayor argued.

"By placing a thumb on the scale against a state adopting — even as a matter of state law — procedural protections the Constitution does not require, the Court risks turning the Federal Constitution into a ceiling, rather than a floor, for the protection of individual liberties," Sotomayor wrote.

Scalia rejected an argument raised by Gleason’s attorneys that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t have jurisdiction in the case. Because the Kansas Supreme Court issued its ruling based on interpretation of a federal law, the Eighth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court was right to rule on the matter, Scalia said.

The Carr and Gleason cases will now return to the Kansas Supreme Court, where the justices will decide whether other details need to be resolved.

"The Kansas Supreme Court will review the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and determine what is the next appropriate step," said Lisa Taylor, the court’s public information officer.

Wednesday’s ruling is likely to disappoint opponents of the death penalty, many of whom had hoped a ruling in the Carr case would diminish the practice. Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer, who said in a dissent last June that capital punishment likely constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, both agreed with Scalia’s majority opinion.

Ben Cohen, an attorney with the nonprofit Capital Appeals Project, which represents death penalty defendants, said, "we are definitely coming to the end of capital punishment when it is news that the (Supreme) Court reaffirms a death sentence."

"Ultimately the court will decide when and in what case it wants to address the deep skepticism with the system for determining who should live and who should die, but that is left for a later day," he added.