935 N.W.2d 541
S.D.2019Background
- Charles Rhines, sentenced to death for a 1992 first-degree murder, has repeatedly litigated challenges to his conviction and the State’s lethal-injection protocols.
- In 2013 Rhines litigated and lost an Eighth Amendment challenge to South Dakota’s lethal-injection procedures; subsequent federal review was denied.
- In August 2018 Rhines sued under SDCL 1-26-14 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing SDDOC Policy 1.3.D.3 ("Execution of an Inmate") is an administrative rule that was not promulgated under the APA.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing the Policy is excluded from the APA as involving inmate disciplinary matters (SDCL 1-26-1(8)(g) and SDCL 1-15-20) and that statutory law (SDCL ch. 23A-27A) independently authorizes executions.
- The circuit court dismissed Rhines’ complaint; the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding the Policy is not an APA rule and that SDCL chapter 23A-27A is self-executing and vests execution authority in the executive officials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDDOC Policy 1.3.D.3 is an APA "rule" subject to notice and comment | Rhines: The Policy is an agency rule implementing execution procedures and must be promulgated under the APA; because it was not, it is invalid | State: The Policy concerns inmate disciplinary matters and internal management, thus excluded from the APA by SDCL 1-26-1(8)(g) and authorized by SDCL 1-15-20 | The Policy is not an APA rule; it falls within the statutory exclusion for inmate disciplinary matters and is therefore not subject to APA rule-making requirements |
| Whether invalidating the Policy would prevent the State from carrying out an execution | Rhines: The Policy governs execution procedures; its invalidity would constrain the State’s ability to execute | State: SDCL chapter 23A-27A (e.g., 23A-27A-32, 23A-27A-31) is self-executing and vests authority in the warden/secretary independent of DOC policy | SDCL chapter 23A-27A is self-executing and provides the operative authority to carry out executions; Policy is not necessary to authorize execution; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rhines, 548 N.W.2d 415 (affirming Rhines’ conviction and sentence)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (method-of-execution Eighth Amendment framework)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for motions to dismiss)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate-indifference / substantial-risk language used in Baze)
- Moulton v. State, 363 N.W.2d 405 (standing / SDCL 1-26-14 requires existence of an agency rule)
- Clay v. Weber, 733 N.W.2d 278 (agency policies not treated as APA rules do not negate statutory authority)