Ronald Phillips v. Mike DeWine
841 F.3d 405
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2014 Ohio enacted HB 663, making identities of persons/entities involved in lethal injection confidential, directing courts to seal related records, barring licensing discipline for participants, and creating a civil cause of action for unauthorized disclosure.
- Three death-sentenced Ohio inmates (Phillips, Tibbetts, Van Hook) sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging HB 663 on First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds (free speech, prior restraint, equal protection, due process, access-to-courts, and right-of-access-to-government-proceedings).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim; the district court granted dismissal and denied as moot preliminary relief.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed jurisdictional and Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, but may affirm on any record-supported ground. The majority affirmed dismissal; Judge Stranch dissented.
- The majority held plaintiffs lacked Article III standing for their Free-Speech and Prior-Restraint claims and found plaintiffs’ right-of-access and other constitutional claims inadequately pleaded under controlling First Amendment access precedent (Houchins) and existing due process/access-to-courts doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Licensure-Immunity & Civil-Action provisions (Free-Speech/Prior Restraint) | HB 663 chills speech and prior restraint because it prevents disclosure of execution participants and deters advocacy (including third-party speakers and recipients). | Plaintiffs are not the regulated objects; they don’t possess the information and face no credible threat of enforcement, so injury is speculative. | No standing: plaintiffs are not objects of those provisions and cannot show imminent enforcement or concrete injury. |
| First Amendment right of access to government proceedings/documents relating to executions | Plaintiffs claim a First Amendment right to government-held information about execution participants and drugs because public access aids oversight and debate. | Defendants rely on Houchins: no constitutional right to government information generally; plaintiffs seek non‑judicial records not covered by Richmond Newspapers/Press-Enterprise. | Claim dismissed: court applies Houchins baseline and refuses to extend Richmond Newspapers/Press-Enterprise to cover the broad category of execution-related government information. |
| Equal protection, due process, and access-to-courts (discovery to challenge execution protocol) | HB 663 prevents effective challenges to execution methods by withholding identities/sources needed for litigation and public scrutiny. | No constitutional right to discovery or a general right to litigate effectively; prior decisions reject similar theories. | Dismissed: no recognized constitutional right to the discovery plaintiffs seek; claims insufficient as pleaded. |
| Relief pendency: preliminary injunction / expedited discovery | Injunctive relief and expedited discovery were necessary to preserve access to evidence before execution. | Because the complaint fails, district court correctly denied as moot. | Affirmed: dismissal of merits claims renders preliminary motions moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (constitutional standing requires injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative or remote fear of enforcement fails injury-in-fact)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (pre-enforcement challenges require credible threat of enforcement)
- Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (no general First Amendment right to government-held information)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (First Amendment right of access to certain criminal proceedings)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1 (experience-and-logic test for qualified right of access)
- In re Search of Fair Fin., 692 F.3d 424 (6th Cir.) (applying experience-and-logic test to access to judicial records)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (content- and speaker-based speech regulations trigger heightened scrutiny)
- Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir.) (applied access analysis to execution-related records; later summarily vacated by Supreme Court order on preliminary-injunction posture)