Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit granted supervisory writs and reversed part of a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action against Bobby Hampton. The court held that Hampton should be allowed to proceed on claims challenging La. R.S. 15:569, including arguments concerning ex post facto principles, retroactivity, nondelegation, due process, and the use of nitrogen hypoxia as an execution method. The court emphasized that the claims raised factual and legal issues requiring further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the exception of no cause of action should have been granted as to Hampton's claims that Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569 violates the ex post facto clause and prohibition against retroactivity.
- Whether Hampton stated a cause of action alleging that Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569 violates the Louisiana Constitution's nondelegation doctrine.
- Whether Hampton stated a cause of action alleging that the procedures in Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569 violate due process because they are impermissibly vague and do not define nitrogen hypoxia.
Holdings
- The exception of no cause of action was improperly granted as to counts I, II, III, and VII because the petition, reasonably construed in Hampton's favor, did not establish with sufficient certainty that he could not prove entitlement to relief.
- Hampton's petition stated a potentially viable claim that applying Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569 could violate the ex post facto clause and prohibition against retroactivity because nitrogen hypoxia might impose a harsher punishment than methods legal at the time of his sentencing.
- Hampton's petition stated a potentially viable claim that Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569 violates the nondelegation doctrine by granting the executive branch legislative power without adequate safeguards governing application of the death penalty.
- Hampton's petition stated a potentially viable due process claim because he alleged that Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569's procedures are impermissibly vague and do not define nitrogen hypoxia.
Key quotations
“When it can reasonably do so, a court should maintain a petition against an exception of no cause of action to afford a litigant an opportunity to present his evidence.” (page 1)
“The degree of suffering imposed by nitrogen hypoxia is a question of fact.” (page 2)
Factual background
Hampton's petition challenged Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569, which concerns methods and procedures for carrying out the death penalty, including nitrogen hypoxia. He alleged that applying the statute implicated the ex post facto clause and retroactivity prohibition, the Louisiana Constitution's nondelegation doctrine, and due process protections. The appellate court concluded that the petition raised factual and legal questions, including whether nitrogen hypoxia imposes greater suffering than lethal injection and whether the statute adequately defines the method and safeguards its implementation.
Procedural history
The Nineteenth Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish granted defendants' exception of no cause of action in part as to four counts of Hampton's petition. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit granted the supervisory writ, reversed that portion of the judgment, and denied the exception as to counts I, II, III, and VII.
Remand instructions
The portion of the November 6, 2025 judgment granting defendants' exception of no cause of action as to counts I, II, III, and VII is reversed, and the exception is denied as to those counts. The opinion directs that Hampton's petition proceed beyond the exception.