« "Retributivist Reform of Collateral Consequences" | Main | Is "comprehensive data" necessary and sufficient to "guide good policymaking" in the criminal justice system? »
July 26, 2019
Previewing the (swift? endless?) litigation sure to ensue in wake of effort to restart the federal machinery of death
As noted in this prior post, AG William Barr has engineered a new federal execution protocol and the scheduling of executions for five federal death-row inmates in December 2019 and January 2020. Perhaps the only thing this moves mean for certain is litigation over whether the new protocol is sound and whether these executions will go forward. Here are links and excerpts from a couple articles previewing the litigation to come:
From BuzzFeed News, "The Trump Administration Is Bringing Back Federal Executions. It Will Immediately End Up In Court." Excerpt:
Megan McCracken, a lawyer involved in the case and an expert on lethal injections, told BuzzFeed News that the litigation focuses on whether a particular execution protocol is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” and also whether the process is otherwise lawful. The lawsuit could examine, for instance, whether the Trump administration followed the proper procedures in adopting the new policy. The administration did not go through the public rule-making process that agencies normally use in adopting regulations, which includes publishing details in advance and giving the public a chance to weigh in, before making its announcement Thursday.
“The devil is really in the details, and so all of the unknowns at this point are going to be the relevant issues for whether or not this protocol is constitutional, is lawful,” McCracken told BuzzFeed News. “That is why the litigation that’s been on hold in federal court since 2011 ... will now need to proceed and give the court opportunity to review the procedure, the drugs, the execution teams, how they plan to administer it.”
A senior Justice Department official said that former attorney general Jeff Sessions directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to explore options for resuming federal executions when he took office. The bureau recently concluded its review and submitted the proposal to Barr, who approved it, the official said. The department’s press release said the new protocol was similar to single-drug procedures used in Georgia, Missouri, and Texas....
The prisoners involved in the pending litigation already had execution dates scheduled, which were put on hold. The five men now scheduled for lethal injections aren’t parties to the case — defendants without execution dates hadn’t sought to join the case while it was delayed — but the Justice Department’s notice to the court Thursday means it expects the judge to review the new protocol.
From The Hill, "Opponents vow to challenge Justice decision on death penalty." Excerpt:
Human rights and anti-death penalty groups are vowing to challenge the Justice Department’s decision to resume the federal death penalty after a 15-year hiatus.... The groups predicted the decision would set off new lawsuits opposing the Trump administration, particularly given a decades-long move against capital punishment that has seen a number of states suspend the practice....
A number of groups, including the ACLU, have indicated that they plan to challenge the new policy, whether in court or through other means. “Under no circumstances should the Justice Department be allowed to rush through executions. The federal death penalty is defined by the same problems of racial bias, geographic disparities, prosecutorial misconduct, and junk science that have led to the decline in support for capital punishment nationwide,” Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project, said in a statement....
Legal battles will likely center on how the policy is being implemented: Barr indicated in Thursday’s announcement that the protocol has already been formally adopted. But experts say that such a policy should have to go through a comment and notice period as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, and that sets it up to be challenged in court....
At least one of the planned executions is already being challenged by the death-row inmate it involves: Attorneys for Daniel Lewis Lee, whose execution is planned for Dec. 9 of this year, are speaking out against the move, saying that his conviction was secured despite the “demonstrated unreliability of the evidence.”
Lee’s attorney Morris Moon raised concerns about the DNA and other evidence used in the case, arguing that it “exemplifies many of the serious flaws in the federal death penalty system.” “Given the problems that undermine the fairness and reliability of Danny Lee’s conviction and death sentence, the Government should not move forward with his execution,” Moon said.
A lawyer for another one of the men, Purkey, also said Thursday that he shouldn’t be executed, claiming that “substandard representation permeated Mr. Purkey’s trial with errors and meant that his jury never had a full picture of his deep and sincere remorse or the personal circumstances that led to these tragic events.“
“The DOJ seeks to execute Mr. Purkey now, despite the myriad legal violations in his case and despite his advancing age and declining health,” attorney Rebecca Woodman said in a statement of her 67-year-old client. “The timing of this decision raises serious questions about the application of capital punishment under this administration."
As suggested by the title of this post, the really big question is whether this capital litigation will move swiftly or slowly. Obviously, the defendants now scheduled to be executed in less than six months would like this litigation to drag on for years. I assume the feds are eager and prepared to move this litigation along swiftly, but just how swiftly? Any ruling adverse to these defendants is sure to be appealed to a federal circuit court and to the Supreme Court. Is DOJ prepared to ask all these courts for expedited briefing schedules in order to try to preserve these scheduled execution dates?
Not mentioned in these pieces, but of great interest to me conceptually, is whether and how these defendants can constitutionally contest how AG Barr decided to put them in the front of the execution queue. Notably, more than a dozen persons on federal death row were sentenced to death before Danny Lee was condemned in 2002, and more than a few were condemned more than half a decade before Lee. Just why was he selected to be the first to be executed? In addition, though less than half of federal death row is white (details here from DEPC), Danny Lee and two other of the condemned given the first execution dates are white. Did AG Barr think it might be politically useful to have more white defendants at the start of the execution queue, and if so wouldn't such thinking raise equal protection concerns? (Because 8 of the 10 defendants sent to federal death row in the 1990s were black, including all three condemned way back in 1993, I think there is a circumstantial basis to believe that AG Barr may not have set executions dates chronologically because of concern that only black defendants would be scheduled to die first. But is it constitutionally permissible for him to give race consideration this way?)
July 26, 2019 at 05:48 PM | Permalink
Comments
All this concern about fairness to murderers pisses me off. Were the murderers fair to the people they murdered? Did those people suffer any pain?
Posted by: William C Jockusch | Jul 27, 2019 4:20:53 PM
In totally shocking news lawyers make work for other lawyers. Gosh, sometimes, just a tiny bit, I miss Supremacy Clause and his rants about rent seeking.
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 27, 2019 10:45:36 PM
I think the lawyers for these folks have a very short time to file a challenge to the protocols. If the attorneys wait until late November, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court will strike any stays granted to the first batch based on that delay.
If the courts reach the merits, given Baze, it is unlikely that any of the Eighth Amendment challenges will succeed. At first glance, the protocol is based on the protocols in those states that have survived Eighth Amendment challenges. As such, I would doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would find that any of these defendants has a substantial probability of prevailing on the Eighth Amendment.
On the APA, the action seems to fit within the concept of "rule making." The statutes governing rule making does contain an exception to the normal notice and comment period based on appropriate findings that such notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest. I know that some states have found that protocols are exempt from the notice and comment provisions of state APA's based on similar exemptions. Given the recent rulings granting substantial deference to this Administration's factual findings in disputed matters subject to the APA, I think that it is unlikely that any defendants will ultimately prevail on the APA claims, but there might be just enough there for the Supreme Court to allow a stay if the claims are filed early enough.
Posted by: tmm | Jul 29, 2019 3:33:22 PM