Vail v. Stenson

Background

A man on death row in Washington asked a state court to block his execution until that court had decided whether the State’s lethal-injection protocol violated his constitutional rights. The state trial court refused to delay the execution. The inmate then filed the same constitutional challenge in federal court under a civil-rights statute and asked the federal judge for a preliminary injunction to stop the execution while the issue was decided. The federal judge entered a stay to give the state court more time.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court was asked to vacate the federal court’s stay. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, wrote separately to explain his view that the federal court should not have entered the stay. He said the state court had already decided under state law that the execution could go forward while the constitutional claim was pending, so the federal court erred by pausing the execution to give the state court additional time. On that procedural ground, Justice Stevens voted to grant the request to lift the stay.

Real world impact

As a result of the Court’s action, the federal stay was removed and the State may proceed with the execution while the state court continues to consider the inmate’s constitutional challenge. The ruling turned on a procedural error, not a final decision on the merits of the constitutional claim, so the underlying constitutional question remains for the state court to decide.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens’s short opinion is a concurrence explaining he voted to grant the application based solely on the federal court’s procedural mistake; Justice Ginsburg joined that view.