Hill v. Owens, 292 Ga. 380

Hill was convicted of murdering a fellow inmate by beating him with a nail-studded board; the death sentence was upheld on direct and subsequent habeas review.
The execution window was set for July 18–25, 2012, with the date later narrowed to a specific day; Georgia changed from a three-drug to a one-drug lethal-injection protocol.
Hill filed a complaint in Fulton County Superior Court alleging that the Board, the Department, and the Commissioner violated the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the new execution procedure.
The Superior Court dismissed the complaint; Hill sought discretionary appeal and a stay of execution, which this Court granted pending appeal.
The Court held the APA does not apply to the Board’s lethal-injection rulemaking and that the Commissioner’s directives in managing executions are not “rules” subject to APA review; the Board’s general rulemaking authority does not compel detailed execution rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board must adopt lethal-injection rules under OCGA 42-2-11(c)(1).	Hill argues the Board is statutorily required to regulate treatment of inmates, including execution drug selection.	Board contends lethal injection is not medical treatment and the Board’s duty does not require specific drug-rule adoption.	No; Board lacks mandatory duty to adopt lethal-injection rules.
Whether amended OCGA 42-2-11(c)(2) requires Board rules addressing management and treatment to cover execution procedures.	Hill asserts broader rulemaking covers all aspects of inmate management, including executions.	Board’s amended duties show focus on treatment/management outcomes, not detailed execution rules.	No; amendments do not compel detailed execution rules.
Whether the Commissioner and Department have binding rulemaking authority under Title 42 or are limited to management directives.	Hill claims the Commissioner/Department can issue binding rules governing executions.	Code vests rulemaking power in the Board; Commissioner issues directives within policy.	Commissioner/Department are not subject to APA as rulemakers; their directives are not binding rules.
Whether the APA applies to the Board’s adoption of execution procedures.	Hill seeks APA compliance for rulemaking on execution procedures.	APA’s applicability is limited by Board’s status and the nature of execution management.	APA does not apply to Board adoption of execution procedures.

Union City Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Justice Outdoor Displays, Inc., 266 Ga. 393 (1996) (more-specific statute governs over general exemption; exception applies)
Jenkins v. State, 265 Ga. 539 (1995) (statutory interpretation principle: later, more specific expression prevails)
Brown v. Caldwell, 231 Ga. 795 (1974) (agency rulemaking and inmate remedies context)
American Horse Protection Assn. v. Lyng, 812 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (agency refusals to institute rulemaking demonstrate high deference)
Diaz v. State of Florida, 945 S.2d 1136 (Fla. 2006) (execution-process management and judicial review preference over APA)