897 F.3d 946
8th Cir.2018Background
- Missouri statute requires the Director of the Department of Corrections to invite at least eight citizens (and the AG) to witness executions; statute bars witnesses under 21 but leaves selection to the Director’s discretion.
- Department had no formal policy governing how the Director selects which adults to invite; selection left to unfettered discretion.
- Applicants must submit a form asking criminal history, reasons for applying, and whether they are or were members of groups supporting or opposing the death penalty.
- Christopher McDaniel, a journalist and death-penalty reporter, applied in 2014 to witness an execution to ensure constitutional compliance; he was never invited and alleges similar applicants expressing that viewpoint were denied.
- McDaniel sued the Director in her official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Director’s policies/customs permit viewpoint discrimination and arbitrary denial of witness status in violation of the Due Process Clause; he sought injunctive relief requiring a selection policy.
- District court denied the Director’s motion to dismiss (standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity); on interlocutory appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — injury in fact | McDaniel: denial to witness harms his journalistic work; interference with professional interest is a concrete injury | Director: no general right to witness an execution, so no cognizable injury | Held: McDaniel has standing — professional interest in witnessing is a cognizable, concrete injury and allegations of discriminatory selection suffice for injury-in-fact |
| Mootness after successor appointment | McDaniel: challenge targets department policies/customs; successor has not repudiated predecessor’s practices, so controversy continues | Director (Precythe): successor may moot if she will not continue prior policies | Held: Not moot — successor made no representation of changed practices and the claim challenges ongoing policies/customs |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity / Ex parte Young applicability | McDaniel: seeks prospective injunctive relief to constrain implementation of statute; Ex parte Young allows suit against state official implementing law | Director: Eleventh Amendment bars suit; Ex parte Young limited to enforcement actions, not ministerial selections like witnesses | Held: Ex parte Young applies — complaint alleges ongoing federal-law violation and seeks prospective relief against an official implementing the statute |
| State "special sovereignty" interest exception | McDaniel: policy reform would not intrude on core sovereign functions of carrying out capital punishment | Director: oversight of witness selection implicates Missouri’s sovereign interest in administering capital punishment (analogous to Coeur d’Alene) | Held: Not analogous to Coeur d’Alene; the requested relief would not impair Missouri’s ability to enforce capital punishment and thus does not fall within that rare exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (authorizes suits for prospective relief against state officials to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (clarifies concreteness and particularization for injury-in-fact)
- Northeast Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (governmental barriers that burden equal access confer standing)
- Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) (exclusion from government benefit based on religious character satisfies injury-in-fact)
- Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) (Eleventh Amendment limits and the special-sovereignty-interest analysis)
- Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (describing Ex parte Young’s straightforward inquiry)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts must ensure Article III case-or-controversy jurisdiction)
- Calzone v. Hawley, 866 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2017) (suit against state official challenging implementation of statute not barred by Eleventh Amendment)
- Missouri Protection & Advocacy Services, Inc. v. Carnahan, 499 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2007) (similar principle permitting suit against state officials implementing law)