Hobbs v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 293

Jones, a death-row inmate, filed suit March 8, 2010 against the ADC Director challenging the 2009 Method of Execution Act (MEA) Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-617 as unconstitutional under Arkansas Constitution separation-of-powers.
Nine additional death-row inmates intervened asserting substantially the same claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
ADC moved to dismiss claims 2–6 (FDCA, CSA, NPA) as not state-law claims; circuit court dismissed those and retained the separation-of-powers claim.
Supplemental complaint (Jan. 24, 2011) added three claims (7–9) tied to non-FDA approved chemicals from Dream Pharma; court denied some dismissals and ADC moved for summary judgment on remaining claims.
Motions for summary judgment were heard (Aug. 15, 2011); the circuit court held MEA unconstitutional, struck the phrase “[any other chemical or chemicals, including but not limited to]” from § 5-4-617(a)(2)(D), and limited injunctive relief concerning certain chemicals.
On final order (Aug. 29, 2011) the court found MEA unconstitutional in its entirety and enjoined use of sodium thiopental obtained in violation of law; this court reversed in part on appeal and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-617 facially unconstitutional under separation of powers?	Jones argues MEA grants unfettered executive discretion.	ADC asserts valid delegation with guiding discretion to Director.	Yes; MEA unconstitutional on its face.
Did striking language from § 5-4-617(a)(2)(D) impact constitutionality or severability?	Prisoners contend striking had no effect on unconstitutionality; MEA not severable.	ADC contends severability and impact limited.	Striking had no practical effect; MEA remains unconstitutional and not severable.
Are claims seven and nine moot due to destruction of Dream Pharma sodium thiopental?	Claims target ongoing risk from any illegally obtained sodium thiopental.	Procurement from Dream Pharma moot since source destroyed.	Claims seven and nine moot; injunctive relief reversed and remanded.
Should the injunctive relief concerning sodium thiopental be affirmed, reversed, or remanded?	Injunction necessary to prevent use of非法 chemicals.	Injunction overly vague and moot.	Reversed; injunction reversed and remanded.

State v. Davis, 178 Ark. 153, 10 S.W.2d 513 (Ark. 1928) (demonstrates distinction between delegating lawmaking vs. execution with guidance)
Venhaus v. State ex rel. Lofton, 285 Ark. 23, 684 S.W.2d 252 (Ark. 1985) (unbridled discretion lacks necessary guidelines; severability analysis later)
Bruton v. State, 246 Ark. 293, 437 S.W.2d 795 (Ark. 1969) (statute unconstitutional when providing unbounded disciplinary power to a board without guidance)
Walden v. Hart, 243 Ark. 650, 420 S.W.2d 868 (Ark. 1967) (unbridled discretion in designation of ambulance/vehicles unconstitutional without guiding questions)
Diaz v. State, 945 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 2006) (upheld lethal-injection statute with general guidance and department discretion)