Summary
The Washington Supreme Court reviewed consolidated challenges by death-row inmates to the Department of Corrections' lethal-injection protocols. The court held that the challenges were not barred by the statute of limitations, upheld the Department's authority to develop the protocol, declined to issue declaratory relief concerning alleged state and federal controlled-substances violations, and dismissed as moot the constitutional challenge to the superseded three-drug protocol. The decision concerns the Department's adoption of a one-drug sodium-thiopental protocol.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellants' challenge to the lethal-injection protocol was barred by Washington's three-year statute of limitations.
- Whether the legislature properly delegated authority to the Department of Corrections to develop and implement a lethal-injection protocol.
- Whether the appellants could obtain declaratory relief based on alleged violations of Washington's Uniform Controlled Substances Act and the federal Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act.
- Whether the constitutional challenge to the abandoned three-drug lethal-injection protocol remained justiciable after the Department adopted a one-drug protocol.
- Whether the court could adjudicate the constitutionality of the new one-drug protocol on the existing appellate record.
Holdings
- The appellants' challenge to the execution protocol was timely because the limitations period ran from the protocol in its current form, and the protocol had been amended in 2007, 2008, and 2010 before the action was filed or while it was pending.
- The legislature properly delegated authority to the Department of Corrections, through the superintendent, to establish and implement the lethal-injection protocol.
- The court declined to issue a declaratory judgment concerning alleged violations of Washington's Uniform Controlled Substances Act or the federal Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act because the requested declaration would not provide a final and conclusive resolution of the controversy.
- The constitutional challenge to the three-drug lethal-injection protocol became moot when the Department abandoned that protocol and adopted a one-drug protocol.
- The court would not decide the constitutionality of the newly adopted one-drug protocol because the issue had not been tried below and could not be tried for the first time on appeal.
Key quotations
“Administrative agencies have those powers expressly granted to them and those necessarily implied from their statutory delegation of authority.” (237 P.3d at 269)
“In short, there has been no trial on the constitutionality of the new one-drug protocol, and we cannot hold such a trial on appeal.” (237 P.3d at 273)
Factual background
Brown, Gentry, and Stenson were sentenced to death following murder convictions and challenged the Washington Department of Corrections' three-drug lethal-injection protocol. The protocol used sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. Before oral argument, the Department abandoned the three-drug protocol and adopted a one-drug protocol using a large dose of sodium thiopental. The appellants also challenged the Department's legislative authority to establish the protocol and its use and handling of controlled substances.
Procedural history
Stenson filed an action in 2008 challenging the Department's lethal-injection protocol under the state and federal constitutions and challenging the Department's authority to develop the protocol. Brown and Gentry later filed a separate action, which was consolidated with Stenson's. The superior court dismissed the delegation and controlled-substances claims on summary judgment and, after a bench trial, upheld the three-drug protocol. The appellants appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court; the Department cross-appealed the statute-of-limitations ruling and moved to dismiss the constitutional claims as moot after adopting a one-drug protocol.