Amy Howe

Mar 29 2019

Supreme Court intervenes in execution of Buddhist prisoner

Last month the Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to execute a Muslim inmate after denying the inmate’s request to have an imam at his side in the execution chamber, even though the prison would allow a Christian chaplain to be present in the chamber. But tonight the justices blocked the state of Texas from executing a Buddhist prisoner, Patrick Murphy, while Murphy files a petition for review of his case on the merits unless the state allows either Murphy’s spiritual advisor or another Buddhist priest to join Murphy in the execution chamber during his execution.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated that they would have denied Murphy’s request.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the court’s decision to block the state from executing Murphy unless he is allowed to have a Buddhist priest at his side. Noting that Murphy had asked to have his spiritual advisor at his side during his execution a month ago (and therefore distinguishing the case from that of the Alabama inmate, whom the majority regarded as having asked for relief too late), Kavanaugh stressed that Texas allows Muslim and Christian inmates to have a Muslim or Christian spiritual advisor employed by the state in the execution chamber, while other inmates of other faiths, including Buddhism, can only have their spiritual advisors in the viewing room. Kavanaugh acknowledged that states may have “a strong interest in tightly controlling access to an execution room in order to ensure that the execution occurs without any complications, distractions, or disruptions.” But the answer to those concerns, he continued, would be to restrict all spiritual advisors, regardless of their faith, to the viewing room. What the state cannot do, he concluded, “is to allow Christian or Muslim inmates but not Buddhist inmates to have a religious adviser of their religion in the execution room.”

 

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies