Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit denied Bobby Hampton’s application for supervisory writs concerning a judgment that partially sustained defendants’ exception of no cause of action. Two judges dissented, concluding that Hampton should be permitted to proceed with claims challenging Louisiana Revised Statutes § 15:569, including claims based on ex post facto principles, retroactivity, nondelegation, due process, and the use of nitrogen hypoxia as an execution method.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether supervisory writs should be granted to review the district court's partial grant of defendants' exception of no cause of action.
- Whether Hampton's petition sufficiently alleged claims that Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569 violates the Louisiana Constitution's ex post facto clause, prohibition against retroactivity, nondelegation doctrine, and due process protections.
Key quotations
“WRIT DENIED.” (p. 1)
“Moving forward without a disposition on the merits leaves the body of law on this issue with only writ denials, which establish no precedential value.” (p. 2)
“a writ denial by this court has no precedential value” (p. 2)
Factual background
Hampton challenged Louisiana Revised Statutes section 15:569, which added nitrogen hypoxia as an execution method, alleging violations of the ex post facto clause, the prohibition against retroactivity, the nondelegation doctrine, and due process protections under the Louisiana Constitution. The dissent stated that the petition raised factual and legal questions concerning whether nitrogen hypoxia causes greater suffering than lethal injection and whether the statute inadequately defines the procedure. The majority denied supervisory writs without resolving those merits questions.
Procedural history
The district court entered a November 6, 2025 judgment partially sustaining defendants' exception of no cause of action. Hampton sought supervisory review in the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit. The majority denied the writ; Judges Miller and Fields dissented and would have granted the writ and denied the exception as to the four specified counts.