D.C. Circuit Will Not Rehear Execution Case

Last month, a splintered three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated an injunction against executions issued by the D.C. District Court. See this post. Today, the court turned down the murderers’ request to rehear the case before all the active judges (except for CJ Srinivasan, who is recused). No judge of the court even called for a vote on it.

Judge Tatel, who dissented from the panel decision, issued a brief statement explaining his position:

Even though I believe this case is en banc worthy, I did not call for a vote because, given that the Supreme Court directed this court to proceed “with appropriate dispatch,” Barr v. Roane, 140 S. Ct. 353 (2019), I agree that “[our] review should be concluded without delay,” Opp’n to Pet. for Reh’g En Banc 15.

The murderers will surely ask the Supreme Court to take the case now. I believe it should, given the importance of the issue and the lack of a majority or a clear rule from the D.C. Circuit.

Should the high court stay executions while it considers the matter? Not in my opinion. First, probability of success is a major factor in the decision to grant a stay. The chance of the present plaintiffs getting a more favorable decision from the Supreme Court than they got from the Court of Appeals is minimal. Second, there is the basic justice of the case. The convictions and sentences have been thoroughly reviewed and found valid. Justice further delayed is justice denied.

The claim that they have some interest in being executed via the state’s protocol rather than the federal one is quibbling. If there is something gravely wrong with the federal protocol on its merits, they can get a stay to litigate that if they meet the requirements for a stay. What they really want, though, is to tie up their executions in litigation so long that they are not executed at all. That should not be allowed.

The Supreme Court should take the case and, in its own words, proceed “with appropriate dispatch.” Summary affirmance should be seriously considered here. After all, the Court is already quite familiar with the issues. See this post and  this order and opinion.