The Associated Press v. Otter
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11669
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ninth Circuit held First Amendment right to view executions from entry into the chamber, including IV insertion, is applicable.
- Idaho’s current procedure excludes viewing the initial stage of execution; final portion remains viewable.
- Media coalition sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking full access to Leavitt’s execution.
- State asserted four penological interests: prisoner privacy, family sensibilities, fellow inmates, and anonymity of medical staff.
- District court denied a preliminary injunction; court of appeals reverses and remands for injunction enforcing full access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Amendment protects viewing all phases of execution. | Media rely on Woodford’s rule of full access. | Idaho asserts penological interests justify partial access. | Likely to succeed; full access required. |
| Whether State's penological interests outweigh First Amendment access. | Interests do not justify restricting initial phase. | Interests are legitimate and should limit access. | Not reasonably related;过exaggerated response; injunction appropriate. |
| Whether irreparable harm exists without injunction. | Loss of First Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm. | Partial viewing mitigates harm; no irreparable injury. | Irreparable harm shown; injunction warranted. |
| Whether the injunction delays Leavitt’s execution or is in public interest. | Injunction does not meaningfully delay; public interest favors transparency. | Timeliness of judgment and execution matters. | No delay anticipated; public interest supports injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- California First Amendment Coalition v. Woodford, 299 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (establishes broad First Amendment access to executions)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court 2008) (test for preliminary injunction elements)
- Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for injunctions; four-part test)
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court 1974) (legitimate governmental interests in restricting press access)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (Supreme Court 1976) (irreparable injury from loss of First Amendment freedoms)
- Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002) (public interest in upholding First Amendment principles)