139 S. Ct. 661
SCOTUS2019Background
- Domineque Ray, a Muslim inmate in Alabama, sought to have an imam present with him in the execution chamber; Alabama routinely allows a Christian chaplain to be present in the chamber but refused Ray’s request.
- The warden denied Ray’s request on January 23, 2019; Ray filed suit on January 28, 2019 challenging the prison practice under the Establishment Clause.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a stay of execution, finding a substantial likelihood Ray would prevail on his Establishment Clause claim and that his filing was timely.
- The State scheduled Ray’s execution for February 7, 2019; Ray’s stay application reached the Supreme Court on February 6–7, 2019.
- The Supreme Court (per curiam) granted the State’s application to vacate the Eleventh Circuit’s stay, relying in part on the lateness of Ray’s filing, and allowed the execution to proceed on February 7, 2019.
- Justice Kagan (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) dissented, arguing the policy discriminates among religions and that the State failed to show narrow tailoring or justify denying an imam access comparable to the Christian chaplain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama’s practice of allowing a Christian chaplain but denying an imam access to the execution chamber violates the Establishment Clause | Ray: Policy favors one religion over others; violates denominational neutrality | State: Policy necessary for prison security; practice is appropriate and justified | Supreme Court vacated the stay (allowed execution); dissent found likely Establishment Clause violation |
| Whether the State met strict-scrutiny requirements (compelling interest narrowly tailored) to justify the denominational preference | Ray: State offered no evidence showing blanket ban on outside spiritual advisers is necessary; reasonable, less restrictive alternatives exist (training, pledge) | State: Security and safety are compelling; policy claimed to be least restrictive means (per affidavit) | Majority accepted procedural grounds to vacate stay without evaluating merits; dissent: State failed to show narrow tailoring |
| Whether Ray’s challenge was timely for equitable relief (stay of execution) | Ray: Warden denied imam on Jan 23 and Ray filed Jan 28 — timely; statute did not put him on notice of the prison’s actual practice | State: Execution date set Nov 6; Ray should have sued earlier; last-minute filing weighed against stay | Supreme Court granted vacatur partly based on Ray’s late filing; dissent found filing timely given denial and lack of notice |
| Whether the Court should defer to the Eleventh Circuit’s stay pending merits | Ray: Circuit’s stay appropriate to hear substantial constitutional claim before execution | State: Last-minute stay disrupts finality and schedule; Gomez precedent permits considering lateness | Supreme Court removed the stay; dissent criticized short-circuiting appellate consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 503 U.S. 653 (1992) (courts may consider last-minute nature of stay applications)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (Establishment Clause forbids official preference for one denomination over another)
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (government may not aid or promote one religious theory against another)
- Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) (government must remain neutral among sects)
- Dugger v. Johnson, 485 U.S. 945 (1988) (deference principles regarding stays and appellate intervention)