Murphy v. Collier
139 S. Ct. 1475
SCOTUS2019Background
- Patrick Murphy, a Buddhist convicted and sentenced to death in 2003, sought to have a Buddhist minister (Rev. Hui-Yong Shih) present in the execution room in March 2019.
- Since 2012, Texas policy permitted only official prison chaplains (over 100, none Buddhist) in the execution room; outside clergy could be in the adjacent viewing room only.
- Murphy's attorneys contacted Texas in February–March 2019; after an initial response that only chaplains were permitted, they waited before filing in state court on March 20 and federal court on March 26—days before the March 28 execution.
- District Court and Fifth Circuit denied stays as untimely under equitable principles; this Court granted a stay late on March 28 and Texas promptly amended policy five days later to exclude all ministers from the execution room (placing all in the viewing room).
- Opinions issued: a concurrence (noting the stay resolved an equal-treatment constitutional problem) and a dissent by Justice Alito (joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch) criticizing the late filing and emphasizing prison-specific legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murphy) | Defendant's Argument (Texas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas's policy discriminates on basis of religion (Establishment/Equal Treatment) | Policy allows Christian and Muslim chaplains in execution room but excludes other faiths' clergy, violating religious equality | Policy applies uniformly to non-official clergy; allowing only authorized chaplains is neutral and needed for security | Court's stay prompted Texas to change policy; concurrence found stay facilitated remedy to equal-treatment issue; dissent viewed claim as fact-intensive and not clearly meritorious on thin record |
| Whether prisoner is entitled to have his preferred outside minister in the execution room (Free Exercise / RLUIPA) | Excluding Rev. Shih imposes a substantial burden on Murphy's religious exercise and RLUIPA/Free Exercise require accommodation | State has compelling/security interests in controlling access to execution room; Turner and prison precedents permit greater restrictions | Resolution requires fact-specific Turner/RLUIPA analysis; concurrence saw Texas's policy change as likely satisfying RLUIPA/Free Exercise; dissent emphasized unresolved factual issues and Turner obstacles |
| Whether last-minute filing forecloses equitable relief (stay) | Emergency relief appropriate because the policy is discriminatory and relief could be provided promptly | Application was inexcusably delayed; strong equitable presumption against last-minute stays; District Court and Fifth Circuit correctly denied relief | Majority granted stay (resulted in policy change); dissent argued stay was improper due to dilatory tactics and courts should respect presumption against eleventh-hour stays |
| Standard of review and applicability of nonprisoner precedents (strict scrutiny vs. Turner) | Plaintiff relies on ordinary First Amendment/Establishment analyses applicable to religious discrimination | Prisoner-rights precedent (Turner) governs and rejects strict scrutiny; courts must consider prison-adapted factors | Dissent stressed Turner/Overton framework applies and cautioned against applying outside-world strict scrutiny without adequate record; concurrence and other opinions treated equal-treatment concerns as dispositive in practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay of execution is equitable and respects State's strong interest in timely enforcement)
- Gomez v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 503 U.S. 653 (1992) (last-minute applications and manipulation can justify denial of equitable relief)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations that impinge on inmates' constitutional rights are judged under deferential balancing test)
- O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) (prisoners' free exercise claims must account for institutional concerns)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (applies Turner factors and defers to institutional judgments where reasonable)
- In re Blodgett, 502 U.S. 236 (1992) (recognizes State interest in timely enforcement of criminal judgments)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004) (strong equitable presumption against stays where claim could have been brought earlier)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (stay factors include reasonable probability of certiorari and merits prospects)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (discusses substantial-burden threshold under RFRA/RLUIPA context)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (favors robust protection for prisoners' religious exercise under tailored analysis)