10 F.4th 561
5th Cir.2021Background
- John Henry Ramirez, convicted of capital murder in Texas (death sentence), faced execution set for September 8, 2021.
- On April 21, 2021, TDCJ revised its Execution Procedure to allow a condemned prisoner’s chosen spiritual advisor to be present in the execution chamber but to prohibit the advisor from audibly praying or physically touching the prisoner during the execution.
- Ramirez filed a § 1983 suit asserting Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA violations based on the ban on audible prayer and laying on of hands by his pastor during the lethal-injection procedure.
- The district court denied Ramirez’s emergency motion for a stay of execution; the Fifth Circuit per curiam denied a stay as well, with concurrences by Chief Judge Owen and Judge Higginbotham and a dissent by Judge Dennis.
- The State defended the policy on safety, security, and administrative grounds and cited analogous BOP and other states’ practices; Ramirez proffered his pastor’s willingness to submit to additional security measures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise Clause challenge | Ramirez: prohibition on audible prayer and touch violates his Free Exercise rights | State: prison-safety/deference standard applies (Turner); restrictions are rationally related to security | Court: stay denied — Ramirez failed to show likelihood of success under Turner (majority/concurrences) |
| RLUIPA — substantial burden | Ramirez: ban on audible prayer and laying on of hands substantially burdens his sincerely held religious exercise | State: presence in chamber but muted/ no-touch rule protects security and comports with BOP/other jurisdictions | Court: stay denied by majority; Judge Dennis would find Ramirez made a strong showing of substantial burden and would grant a stay (split) |
| RLUIPA — least restrictive means (strict scrutiny) | Ramirez: State has not met its burden to show policy is least restrictive; alternatives exist and pastor willing to accept checks | State: general, significant security concerns; policy consistent with federal/state practices and necessary to maintain orderly, safe executions | Court: majority/concurring judges accepted State’s justifications for now and denied stay; dissent finds State failed to meet RLUIPA’s "exceptionally demanding" least-restrictive-means burden |
| Credibility / timing of request | Ramirez: need for audible prayer/touch is sincere and integral at moment of death | State/Owen concurrence: Ramirez previously indicated no physical contact was required; change suggests strategic delay | Court: the concurrence noted the prior position and potential strategic timing as a factor weighing against relief; dissent finds timing insufficient to defeat merits at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) (RLUIPA requires compelling interest and least restrictive means; "exceptionally demanding" standard)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (government bears burden to satisfy strict scrutiny under RFRA at preliminary stages)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (deferential standard for prisoner Free Exercise claims based on institutional interests)
- Gutierrez v. Saenz, 141 S. Ct. 127 (2020) (Supreme Court granted stay and remanded for factfinding on security effects of allowing an inmate’s chosen spiritual adviser in chamber)
- Dunn v. Smith, 141 S. Ct. 725 (2021) (statement recognizing that barring minister’s presence can substantially burden religious exercise)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (stay of execution is an equitable remedy; habeas vs. § 1983 distinctions)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay of execution factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, injury to others, public interest)
- Green v. Thaler, 699 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2012) (application of Nken stay factors in Fifth Circuit)