Earlene Branch Peterson v. William P. Barr
965 F.3d 549
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- In 1996 Daniel Lewis Lee murdered three members of an Arkansas family; he was convicted in federal court and sentenced to death in 1999.
- The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) scheduled Lee’s execution for July 13, 2020; three victim family members (Nancy Mueller’s mother, sister, and niece) sought to attend but opposed the execution and challenged the date due to COVID-19 health risks.
- Plaintiffs sued in the Southern District of Indiana under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing the BOP’s scheduling decision was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to account for their right to attend during the pandemic.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction halting the execution; the government appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which expedited briefing and vacated the injunction.
- The Seventh Circuit held the APA claim lacked any arguable legal basis: scheduling an execution may be committed to agency discretion, plaintiffs have no statutory or regulatory right to attend, and § 3596(a)’s incorporation of state “manner” of execution does not extend to witness rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability under APA (§701(a)(2)) | BOP’s scheduling of execution is reviewable and was arbitrary for not considering plaintiffs’ attendance concerns | Scheduling is committed to agency discretion; regulations set minimal standards and leave date selection to BOP Director | Court: Likely unreviewable or at least not constrained by judicially manageable standards here; claim frivolous |
| Right to attend (zone-of-interests) | Plaintiffs rely on 28 C.F.R. §26.4(c)(4)(i) to claim a right to be selected as witnesses | Regulation lists who may be present but does not create an enforceable entitlement for particular persons | Court: No statute or regulation gives plaintiffs a right to attend; they are not within the zone of interests protected |
| Incorporation of state law under 18 U.S.C. §3596(a) | District judge: §3596(a) incorporates Arkansas witness statute (Ark. Code §16-90-502(e)(1)), so BOP must consider state witness rules | Government: §3596(a) incorporates state laws governing the manner of effecting death (methods/procedures), not peripheral witness rules | Court: §3596(a) does not reasonably incorporate witness rules; “manner” pertains to how death is carried out, not who watches; D.C. Circuit Execution Protocol Cases does not support broader incorporation |
| Preliminary injunction appropriateness | Plaintiffs: strong likelihood of success on the APA claim; irreparable harm from COVID-19 risk | Government: claim legally baseless; injunction improperly enjoins execution | Court: PI vacated because plaintiffs’ legal theory lacked merit and was frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency decisions committed to agency discretion are presumptively unreviewable under APA §701(a)(2))
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. EPA, 947 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2020) (framework for deciding whether statutes/regulations supply judicially manageable standards)
- Air Courier Conference of Am. v. Am. Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO, 498 U.S. 517 (1991) (plaintiff must fall within zone of interests protected by the statute relied on)
- In re Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Execution Protocol Cases, 955 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (analyzed scope of §3596(a) incorporation of state execution-related law)
- United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020) (court cautions against judges inventing and relying on theories not presented by parties)