LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Arkansas can execute eight death row inmates using its three-drug protocol, a split Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday in upholding a state law that keeps information about lethal injection drugs confidential.
The inmates had argued that Arkansas’ execution secrecy law could lead to cruel and unusual punishment and that the state reneged on a pledge to share information.
Attorneys for the state said at least five other courts have ruled that the three drugs used in Arkansas’ protocol are acceptable, including the sedative midazolam. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma’s use of midazolam last year.
One of the state’s execution drugs will expire June 30, and the seller has said it will not provide more.
“The circuit court erred in ruling that public access to the identity of the supplier of the three drugs (the Arkansas Department of Correction) has obtained would positively enhance the functioning of executions in Arkansas,” the court’s ruling said. “As has been well documented, disclosing the information is actually detrimental to the process.”
A spokesman for Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said the state was reviewing the ruling and would comment later Thursday.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson set dates last September for the state’s first executions since 2005. Those executions were later stayed by the court until the inmates’ challenge could be heard.
The state’s attorneys had asked the high court to overturn Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Wendell Griffen’s ruling that the secrecy provisions of the execution law are unconstitutional. They argued that the inmates did not present a compelling argument to strike down the execution secrecy provision. The law requires the state to conceal the maker and seller of the drugs including from the death row inmates.
The inmates argued that without disclosure of the source and other information they had no way to determine whether the midazolam, vecuronium bromide or potassium chloride would lead to cruel and unusual punishment.
The inmates also argued that the secrecy law violates a settlement in an earlier lawsuit that guaranteed inmates would be given the information. The state has said that agreement is not a binding contract.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.