Christopher McDaniel v. Anne Precythe

Summary

Journalist Christopher McDaniel challenged Missouri's execution witness selection procedures, alleging the Director's unbridled discretion violated due process by enabling viewpoint discrimination. The Eighth Circuit held McDaniel had standing because his inability to compete on equal footing for witness selection constituted injury in fact, and the claim was not moot despite a successor director. The court also ruled the suit was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under *Ex parte Young*, as McDaniel sought prospective injunctive relief for an ongoing constitutional violation. Key topics: standing, mootness, Eleventh Amendment immunity, due process, execution witness selection, viewpoint discrimination.

Holdings

1. McDaniel has standing because he alleged an injury in fact—the inability to compete on equal footing for the opportunity to witness an execution due to the Director's allegedly viewpoint-discriminatory policies.
2. The case is not moot because the new Director has not announced new policies or represented that she will depart from the predecessor's policies.
3. The suit is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the Ex parte Young exception applies—the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks prospective injunctive relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McDaniel has standing to sue
2. Whether the case is moot due to the appointment of a new Director
3. Whether the Director is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment

Disposition

affirmed