Justice 360 v. Bryan Stirling, 42 F.4th 450

Background

Justice 360, a nonprofit that advises and represents death‑row inmates in South Carolina, sued solely on its own behalf seeking access to SCDC execution protocols and supplier/chain‑of‑custody information withheld under S.C. Code § 24‑3‑580 (the "Identity Statute").
Historically SCDC provided protocols to counsel, but the 2010 Identity Statute (and a 2015 AG opinion construing its scope) limited disclosure of execution‑team identities and related records. The AG opinion broadened "execution team" to include drug suppliers/compounders.
Justice 360 requested protocols and supplier information; SCDC refused and offered limited on‑site review subject to a confidentiality agreement. Justice 360 declined, filed this First Amendment challenge, and separately pursued FOIA relief in state court (which was denied).
The district court dismissed Justice 360’s First Amendment claim on the merits (treating it as an access/right‑of‑access claim) and denied leave to amend; Justice 360 appealed only the dismissal of claims against SCDC Director Stirling.
While litigation proceeded, SCDC could not procure lethal‑injection drugs, South Carolina added firing squad as an option, and later provided limited confidential, case‑specific access to Justice 360 for particular clients. No executions are currently scheduled, and Justice 360 conceded it lacks operative, certifiable protocols to which it claims entitlement.
The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of Article III jurisdiction, holding Justice 360 failed to show redressability (no non‑speculative likelihood a favorable ruling would procure the requested information).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing — redressability	Invalidating Identity Statute or AG opinion would allow Justice 360 to obtain protocols and counsel clients, so injury is redressable.	Even if statute/AG opinion were struck, SCDC/Director retains discretion and other statutory exemptions (and FOIA denial) prevent guaranteed access.	No redressability; speculative that a favorable ruling would produce the requested records. Case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
First Amendment — right to access / professional speech	The statute burdens Justice 360's professional and political speech by preventing counseling clients and litigating Eighth Amendment claims; First Amendment protections should permit access.	There is no general First Amendment right to obtain government records; this is effectively an access claim courts routinely reject.	Court did not reach merits; rejected standing so did not adjudicate the asserted First Amendment right. (District court had dismissed on merits as an access claim.)
Alternative remedies / confidentiality agreements / FOIA	Confidential, case‑specific agreements are inadequate; Justice 360 seeks a systemic, non‑case‑specific right to protocols and supplier info.	Confidential agreements provided needed access for specific clients; FOIA and state courts deny disclosure for security exemptions; Director retains managerial authority over protocols.	Even if statute were invalidated, statutory scheme and discretion/FOIA exemptions mean relief would not necessarily yield the information—redress speculative.

Key Cases Cited

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury including redressability)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (federal courts limited to actual cases or controversies)
Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013) (federal courts may not issue advisory opinions when relief would not affect rights)
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (courts require concrete redressable interests beyond abstract legal questions)
Doe v. Va. Dep’t of State Police, 713 F.3d 745 (4th Cir. 2013) (speculative relief fails redressability requirement)
McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013) (no constitutional right to obtain information provided by state FOIA laws)
Fusaro v. Cogan, 930 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2019) (no general First Amendment right of access to government records)
AFGE v. Off. of Special Couns., 1 F.4th 180 (4th Cir. 2021) (organizational standing principles and First Amendment standing nuances)
Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978) (plurality: no constitutional right to access particular government information)