First Amendment Coalition of Arizona v. Ryan, No. 17-16330 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs filed suit against officials of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), challenging aspects of the Arizona execution process. Plaintiffs contend that Arizona's practices violate their First Amendment right of access to governmental proceedings and violate inmates' rights of access to the courts.
The Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment right of access to governmental proceedings encompasses a right to hear the sounds of executions in their entirety. Furthermore, on the facts alleged, Arizona's restrictions on press and public access to the sounds of executions impermissibly burden that right. However, the panel held that neither the public nor the press has a First Amendment right of access to information regarding the manufacturers, sellers, lot numbers, National Drug Codes, and expiration dates of lethal-injection drugs, as well as documentation regarding the qualifications of certain execution team members. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs' claim that Arizona's restrictions violate the inmates' First Amendment right of access to the courts failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint.
Court Description: First Amendment / Death Penalty / 42 U.S.C. § 1983 The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in an action brought by Arizona death-row inmates and the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, challenging Arizona’s revised execution procedures under the First Amendment. Plaintiffs challenged three of Arizona’s practices. First, the plaintiffs claimed that Arizona unconstitutionally restricted the ability of execution witnesses to hear the sounds of the entire execution process. Second, the plaintiffs claimed that Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”) officials violated their First Amendment rights by failing to disclose certain information regarding the source and quality of the lethal-injection drugs to be used in the inmates’ execution. Third, the plaintiffs claimed that ADC officials were violating the First Amendment by failing to disclose the qualifications of each execution team member who will insert intravenous lines into the inmates. FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION V. RYAN 3 Concerning plaintiffs’ claim that ADC officials violated their First Amendment right of access to governmental proceedings, the panel held that the right encompassed a right to hear the sounds of executions in their entirety. The panel further held that on the facts alleged, Arizona’s restrictions on press and public access to the sounds of executions impermissibly burdened that right. The panel reversed the district court’s decision as to this restriction. The panel also held that because the First Amendment right of access to governmental proceedings did not entitle the plaintiffs to information regarding execution drugs and personnel as a matter of law, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice those aspects of the plaintiffs’ claim relating to such information. Concerning plaintiffs’ claim that Arizona’s restrictions violated the inmates’ First Amendment right of access to the courts, the panel agreed with the district court that the claim failed as a matter of law. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this claim without leave to amend. Judge Berzon concurred in Parts I and II of the majority opinion, but dissented as to Part III (First Amendment right of access to the courts). Judge Berzon wrote separately to call attention to the inmates’ plausible allegations that Arizona, through its deliberate concealment of information about its execution process, has violated their First Amendment right of access to the courts. Judge Berzon would also hold that Arizona’s approach to devising, announcing, and recording its execution procedures denied condemned inmates their right under the Fourteenth Amendment to procedural due process of law. 4 FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION V. RYAN
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.