Trump Administration to resume Federal Executions after winning a Legal Dispute

Listen to this article

On Tuesday, an appeals court sided with the Trump administration in its effort to resume executions of federal death row prisoners, after a 16-year hiatus. Moreover, a legal challenge by inmates was sent back to a lower court for further review. It is still unclear whether executions might resume. The Justice Department announced in July 2019 that it would restart federal executions and scheduled 5 for inmates convicted of murders and sex crimes. Just weeks before the first execution was scheduled, the inmates challenged their executions and a trial court judge, Tanya Chutkan of Washington temporarily halted them in November. She ruled that the federal government’s execution procedure likely violates the Federal Death Penalty Act.

The US government procedure is for lethal injection using one drug, pentobarbital, but Judge Chutkan said that this was inconsistent with the 1994 law requiring federal executions to be carried out in the manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence is imposed. Tuesday, a 3-judge panel at the U.S Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit disagreed in a 2-1 ruling on with 2 judges appointed by President Donald Trump siding with the administration. Each judge offered a separate opinion with a different view of what the law requires for federal execution guidelines. The judges who sided with the federal government were Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, but Judge David Tatel dissented.

The US Justice Department rejected to comment on the case or whether it would schedule new execution dates while litigation is ongoing. An attorney for the inmates, Cate Stetson said in an emailed statement that the Trump administration had rushed the process in order to carry out executions without meaningful judicial review of the legality and constitutionality of the new execution procedures. The lawyers for the inmates are considering their options following the ruling, including asking the full appeals court to review the case. The executive director of the Death Penalty Information Centre, Robert Dunham said the judges’ decision raises more questions than it answers and doesn’t give much guidance going forward.