Balogh v. Lombardi, No. 14-3603 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe ACLU filed suit against the director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Mo. Rev. Stat. 546.720 is unconstitutional as applied to department records the ACLU obtained under the Missouri Sunshine Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. 610.010 et seq., and then posted on its website. Section 546.720 prohibits the disclosure of the identities of individuals who participate in executions. On appeal, the director challenged the district court's order denying immunity. The court concluded that the ACLU has alleged an injury in fact because it has shown an objectively reasonable fear of legal action that chills its speech. The court concluded, however, that the ACLU’s injury is not fairly traceable to the director because he does not possess any statutory authority to enforce section 546.720, and the ACLU's injury is fairly traceable only to the private civil litigants who may seek damages under the statute and thereby enforce the statute. Therefore, the court concluded that the ACLU lacks standing. The court also concluded that the director is also immune from suit because he lacks authority to enforce the challenged statute. In this case, the director’s authority to define the members of the execution team is not an enforcement action within the meaning of Ex Parte Young and its progeny. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Bye and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Missouri executions. The ACLU did not have standing to bring an action against the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections challenging the constitutionality of Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 546.720.3, which provides a private right of action against anyone who, without the approval of the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, knowingly discloses the identity of a current or former member of an execution team, as any injury the ACLU might suffer is not fairly traceable to the director because he does not possess any statutory authority to enforce the section; because the director lacks authority to enforce the section, he is also immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment; the director's authority to define the members of the team is not an enforcement action within the meaning of Ex Parte Young and its progeny.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.