Dunn v. Smith
The Supreme Court refused to let Alabama execute a death row inmate without his pastor present, leaving in place a lower court order that found the State's blanket ban on clergy in the execution chamber likely violates a federal religious-freedom law protecting prisoners.
The decision signals that states which want to avoid legal delays over this issue should find a way to allow inmates' chosen spiritual advisors into the execution room, as the federal government and several states already do.
How it got here: The Eleventh Circuit enjoined Alabama's execution after finding its blanket clergy exclusion policy likely violated RLUIPA; Alabama applied to the Supreme Court to lift that order.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Willie Smith was sentenced to death in Alabama for a 1991 murder. Before his scheduled execution, he asked to have his Baptist pastor present with him in the execution chamber, believing his pastor's presence was essential to his religious search for redemption. Alabama refused, citing a policy that bars all clergy from the execution chamber, allowing them only in a separate viewing room. Smith sued, and a federal appeals court blocked the execution.
The question before the Court
Can Alabama execute a death row inmate without his pastor present in the execution chamber, when the inmate sincerely believes his pastor's presence is essential to his faith?
The Court's answer
No — not under these circumstances. The Court refused to lift a lower court order blocking Alabama from executing Smith until the State allowed his pastor in the execution chamber. Under a federal law called RLUIPA, which gives prisoners strong protection for religious exercise, a prison policy that burdens an inmate's religious practice is only valid if it is the least restrictive way of serving a compelling government interest. Alabama's blanket ban on all clergy in the execution chamber failed that demanding test, because other states and the federal government routinely allow prisoners' chosen clergy at executions without security problems.
This order is temporary — it keeps the lower court's block in place while the underlying legal proceedings continue. The Court has not permanently resolved whether Alabama must always permit spiritual advisors in the execution chamber.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Death row inmates may be able to insist on having a spiritual advisor of their chosen faith present in the execution chamber — not just in a separate viewing room. States with blanket bans on clergy in execution rooms now face a high legal bar to justify those policies, and many may need to revise their protocols before carrying out executions.
What changes now
Alabama cannot proceed with Smith's execution under its current policy of barring all clergy from the execution chamber. The underlying lawsuit continues in the lower courts, where Alabama must demonstrate that its ban satisfies RLUIPA's demanding standard. Justice Kavanaugh's dissent pointedly suggested that states should revise their protocols to allow inmates' chosen clergy in the execution room — as the federal government and other states already do — to avoid ongoing litigation delays and bring closure to victims' families.
What this does not decide
This is a temporary emergency order, not a final ruling. The Court has not decided whether Alabama's execution protocol permanently violates RLUIPA, nor has it addressed what security measures would be sufficient to justify limiting clergy access. The underlying case will be resolved in the lower courts.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Kagan
“The law guarantees Smith the right to practice his faith free from unnecessary interference, including at the moment the State puts him to death.”Justice Kagan's conclusion that RLUIPA protects a condemned inmate's right to religious practice at the moment of execution.
Justice Kagan wrote the substantive explanation for the Court's denial. She walked through RLUIPA's strict scrutiny test and concluded Alabama had not met it: other jurisdictions — including the federal government — had conducted executions with the prisoner's chosen clergy present without incident, showing that less restrictive alternatives to a total ban exist. She rejected Alabama's security justifications as unpersuasive, finding the State could vet clergy through background checks and pledges rather than presuming all clergy are untrustworthy.
Dissent — Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh argued that Alabama's policy of excluding all spiritual advisors from the execution room — while permitting them in the viewing room — is non-discriminatory and serves compelling interests in safety, security, and solemnity. He would have lifted the injunction and let the execution proceed. At the same time, he offered practical advice to states: given the Court's repeated intervention on this issue, states should proactively allow spiritual advisors into execution rooms to avoid further litigation delays and provide closure to victims' families.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The governing legal standard comes from RLUIPA — the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act — which gives prisoners broad protection for religious exercise. Under RLUIPA, a prison cannot substantially burden an inmate's religious practice unless the burden is the 'least restrictive means' of serving a compelling government interest. This is called strict scrutiny — the most demanding test in constitutional law — and it requires the government to use the least intrusive option available to achieve its goal.
- Alabama's policy of barring all clergy from the execution chamber — leaving inmates to die without spiritual attendance — places a substantial burden on Smith's religious practice. Alabama itself acknowledged that Smith's request is rooted in sincere religious belief, not some other motivation, so strict scrutiny clearly applies.
- Prison security is a compelling interest, but Alabama failed to show its blanket ban was the least restrictive means of protecting it. The evidence cuts the other way: until two years earlier, Alabama itself required a prison chaplain at the inmate's side during executions. The federal government had conducted more than ten executions attended by the prisoner's chosen clergy in the past year alone, and some states follow the same practice. No jurisdiction has reported a clergy member disturbing an execution.
- Alabama argued it needed to limit the execution chamber to people the warden found 'trustworthy,' but the Court found this did not justify a categorical ban. Less restrictive options — such as background checks, interviews, and binding pledges to follow all rules — could address security concerns without barring all clergy entirely. RLUIPA requires officials to demonstrate that a less restrictive alternative would be ineffective, not merely assume it would be.
- Because Alabama could not clear RLUIPA's strict scrutiny bar, the Eleventh Circuit was right to block the execution, and the Supreme Court left that block in place.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Holt v. Hobbs (574 U. S. 352)
Confirmed as the governing framework for applying RLUIPA's strict scrutiny test to prison religious-exercise claims.