Cooey v. Kasich
801 F. Supp. 2d 623
| S.D. Ohio | 2011Background
- Consolidated § 1983 cases challenge Ohio's lethal injection protocol, with Kenneth Smith on death row scheduled for July 19, 2011.
- Plaintiff moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction; hearing held June 29, 2011, addressing alleged equal protection concerns from the protocol.
- Stipulations before the hearing documented modifications for Smith's execution, including bed adjustments, IV access restraints, suction, alternative cushions, and a microphone for counsel access.
- Witnesses testified about team qualifications, IV drug handling, drug acquisition from SOMC, and deviations from the written protocol (including a non‑qualified participant and altered redundancies).
- Court found an overarching state execution policy with core deviations from the written protocol, and significant documentation and redundancy failures threatening constitutional protections.
- Court concluded Smith is substantially likely to prevail on his equal protection claim and granted a TRO/preliminary injunction blocking Ohio from executing Smith until further order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio's core deviations from the protocol violate equal protection. | Smith argues deviations burden fundamental rights without rational basis. | Ohio contends deviations are permissible as humane adjustments under policy guidelines. | Plaintiff likely to prevail on equal protection claim. |
| Whether the deviations create irreparable constitutional injury justifying a stay. | Constitutional rights are threatened by unreliable execution practices. | Deviations are permissible policy decisions to ensure humane execution. | Stay warranted; TRO and preliminary injunction granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooey v. Strickland, 610 F. Supp. 2d 853 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (central equal protection/deviation concerns in lethal injection)
- Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005) (class-of-one rational basis and equal protection framework)
- Warren v. City of Athens, 411 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2005) (rational-basis review standards in equal protection analysis)
- TriHealth, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 430 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2005) (rational basis scrutiny and government interests in health care context)
- Johnson v. Bredesen, 624 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2010) (presence of rational-basis pitfalls in governmental action)