U.S. President Donald Trump's administration argued in a federal appeals court on Wednesday that it should be allowed to execute condemned inmates without delay after a lower court ordered the executions be put on hold to hear legal challenges.
The administration's efforts to resume federal executions last year after a nearly 2-decade pause were stymied by legal challenges from death row inmates.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments for 2 hours on Wednesday on whether to lift a lower court's injunction blocking the executions. It was unclear when the 3-judge panel would issue its decision.
Attorney General William Barr announced the planned resumption of executions and a new 1-drug lethal injection protocol using pentobarbital, a powerful barbiturate drug, in July.
The first executions were scheduled for December but were placed on hold by a federal judge overseeing long-running lawsuits challenging the government's execution protocols. There are 62 inmates on federal death row in Terre Haute, Indiana.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed with one of the inmates' arguments, namely that federal law does not permit the government to create a nationwide execution protocol, instead requiring executions to be carried out using the "manner" of the state where the inmate was convicted.
The government contends "manner" means the basic method a state uses: lethal injection, in most cases, as opposed to a firing squad or electrocution, for example. It rejects the idea that it must follow the details of a state's execution protocol, which may dictate the drugs used and where in the body the needles are placed.
Melissa Patterson, a lawyer for the government, said this would be "tying the federal governments' hands."
"Congress did not mean to say the states are in charge here," she said.
Catherine Stetson, a lawyer for the death row inmates, said Congress intended for the government to follow state procedures. She noted that in the last century states have carried out the vast majority of executions in the United States while the federal government has executed only 3 people since the 1960s.
"The people who know what they're doing are the states carrying out the death penalty," Stetson said.
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the Justice Department's request to overturn the district court's injunction but urged the appeals court to rule on the case quickly, saying it should be possible to decide within 60 days.
Source: Reuters, Staff, January 16, 2020
Appeals court appears wary of Trump admin death sentence plan
A federal appeals court in Washington on Wednesday appeared reluctant to let the Trump administration reinstate federal executions under a new lethal injection policy.
A 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seemed to lean in favor of four inmates whose executions, scheduled to take place over recent weeks, were temporarily halted last year.
During oral arguments, a lawyer for the Justice Department faced tough questions about whether the administration’s new approach to lethal injections violated a federal law that calls on the government to defer to states over the method of execution.
“What this looks like is that Congress was vesting the right to carry out death penalties to the states,” Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, told the government’s attorney. “That's one way to look at this.”
Tatel was joined by 2 Trump appointees, Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both of whom asked sharp questions about the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to resume executions, which have not been carried out at the federal level since 2003.
Attorney General William Barr last July announced that executions would resume under a new lethal injection protocol that utilizes a single drug, pentobarbital sodium. The announcement came after a widespread shortage during the Obama era of lethal injection drugs involved in the familiar 3-drug "cocktail."
The death row inmates sued, arguing that their executions should be halted on the grounds that the Trump administration drug protocol violated a 1994 law, the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA). The law says that the state where a capital crime was committed should determine the method of execution, not the federal government.
The Wednesday oral argument centered on just how closely Congress intended for the federal government to adhere to the specifics of state execution laws.
Catherine Stetson, who argued on behalf of the inmates, said the federal statute encompasses even granular details spelled out in state law, like how an IV should be inserted and the manner in which a death row inmate’s consciousness is monitored.
Justice Department attorney Melissa Patterson faced strong pushback when she argued that the statute only required that the federal government match the state’s method of execution. Under this reading, the issue of which specific ingredients were used in a lethal injection would have little relevance.
“You could imagine Congress wanted to defer to the states,” Rao said, challenging Patterson. “I don’t know why that would be so peculiar.”
Sounding a somewhat incredulous tone, Tatel asked, “Could the attorney general use fentanyl?”
“Absolutely,” Patterson responded.
Katsas, who of the 3 judges kept his cards closest to the vest, said the key question was how much “granularity” of state law Congress entrenched in the federal statute. He appeared to wrestle with how to classify the level of specificity that lethal injection ingredients should occupy.
“The question of which drug you pick,” he told Patterson, “that might not be top-line, but that could be 2nd line.”
The 4 inmates were scheduled to be executed last month and this month, before their lawsuits could fully play out in court. But Judge Tanya Chutkan of the district court in D.C. sided with the challengers and agreed to temporarily suspend their executions. A 5th was put on hold by a separate court.
In her Nov. 20 opinion, Chutkan, an Obama appointee, said the federal government likely exceeded its authority by implementing a single uniform method of execution, rather than follow the state-by-state approach under the FDPA.
“There is no statute that gives the [federal government] the authority to establish a single implementation procedure for all federal executions,” she wrote. “To the contrary, Congress, through the FDPA, expressly reserved those decisions for the states of conviction.”
The D.C. circuit court affirmed the ruling, which prompted the Trump administration to file an emergency petition to the Supreme Court to vacate the stay.
The high court rejected the request, but conservative Justice Samuel Alito, joined by his colleagues Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, urged the appeals court to resolve the case quickly.
More than a dozen states, which each permit capital punishment, have come out in support of the Trump administration’s push to resume federal executions.
Source: thehill.com, Staff, January 16
⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us:
deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde
