Supreme Court stays death sentence so inmate's pastor can be present at execution

The Supreme Court has ruled that a Texas inmate is likely to prevail on his claim that prison officials violated his religious rights in denying his request to have a pastor present during his execution.

The case is Ramirez v. Collier, issued on March 24. The Court notes that Ramirez viciously murdered someone, stabbing him 29 times and making off with $1.25. After fleeing to Mexico for three years, Ramirez was convicted of murder and received the death penalty. 

This case does not challenge Ramirez's conviction or his death sentence. He sues under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 and the Free Exercise Clause because he wanted his pastor present during the execution. The pastor would lay hands on him and pray over him. Texas said no, because that would interfere with the necessary silence for these procedures. But the Court says that argument is not good enough because a categorical ban on audible prayer is not the least restrictive means to monitor the inmate's medical condition before they flip the switch. There are other ways to monitor the inmate's health without prohibiting a religious figure from the process. Other states allow pastors to play this role, so Texas can also achieve its objectives with the pastor present, as well. The other reason Texas said no was that allowing a spiritual advisor to pray during the procedure could result in the pastor making a statement to the execution witnesses or prison officials that would disrupt the solemnity and decorum of the procedure. The Court says this kind of speculative concern is not enough to interfere with an inmate's religious rights. 

Remember, this is a religious freedom case, and Congress has said that even inmates have rights in jail to exercise their religious rights. The law under which Ramirez brings this challenge was enacted after the Supreme Court in the 1990s scaled back the scope of the Free Exercise Clause. The government therefore needs a compelling reason for restricting religious freedoms. That's a tough hurdle. The Court says the state has not advanced compelling reasons to keep the pastor out of the room. While the state says doing so would interfere with security in the execution chamber, prevent the prisoner's unnecessary suffering, and traumatize the victim's family members (who will be reminded that the murder victim received no such solace), there are obvious alternative means to prevent these harms from taking place without kicking the pastor out of the room.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the 8-1 majority opinion, joined by the others except for Justice Thomas, who opens his dissent with a detailed discussion of the stabbing. Thomas argues that in preliminary injunction cases like this, courts should consider equitable factors, such as whether the condemned criminal has made an "attempt at manipulation" that would prevent the requested equitable relief, such as the relief in this case. As Thomas sees it, Ramirez has manipulated the legal system through shifting positions to simply delay the execution. Not to mention the fact that Ramirez disappeared to Mexico after the murder, delaying justice. After several frivolous litigation tactics that followed his conviction, Thomas says, Ramirez ultimately delayed the execution for years. The equities also include the crime victims' families' right to the timely execution of a lawful death sentence.