Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, and Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, In Their Official Capacities, 90 N.E.3d 660

Roy Ward, condemned to death, challenged Indiana Department of Correction’s (DOC) 2014 change to the lethal‑injection protocol replacing Sodium Thiopental with Brevital in the three‑drug sequence.
Indiana statute prescribes death by intravenous injection; DOC administers executions and maintains internal protocols.
Ward sued in LaPorte Circuit Court alleging the DOC’s new three‑drug cocktail was an administrative “rule” that had to be adopted under the Administrative Rules and Procedures Act (ARPA), and that failure to do so violated due process.
DOC moved to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6); trial court granted dismissal finding the change was an internal policy not subject to ARPA.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the protocol was a rule and void for failure to follow ARPA; the Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Supreme Court considered whether the lethal‑injection protocol “has the effect of law” (thereby constituting a rule) or is an internal agency procedure exempt from ARPA, and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOC’s lethal‑injection protocol (three‑drug cocktail) is an administrative “rule” under ARPA	Ward: the change to add Brevital is a rule that has the "effect of law" and must be promulgated under ARPA	DOC: the protocol is an internal policy/procedure governing DOC personnel and does not bind or regulate offenders, so ARPA does not apply	The protocol does not have the "effect of law" because it does not prescribe binding standards of conduct for persons subject to agency authority; it is an internal procedure exempt from ARPA; judgment below affirmed

Ward v. State, 903 N.E.2d 946 (Ind. 2009) (background on Ward’s conviction and sentence)
Villegas v. Silverman, 832 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (agency requirement constituted a rule where it primarily affected external parties and required them to alter conduct)
Blinzinger v. Americana Healthcare Corp., 466 N.E.2d 1371 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (administrative rule definition used in court of appeals precedent)
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) (federal guidance that rules must affect individual rights and obligations to have force of law)
Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S. 641 (2013) (agency or port requirements carry force of law when they impose binding coercive standards on regulated parties)
In re Adoption of J.T.D., 21 N.E.3d 824 (Ind. 2014) (court rules have the force and effect of law and affect substantive rights)
Magnuson v. Billings, 52 N.E. 803 (Ind. 1899) (historical statement that court rules can have the force and effect of law)