Justices allow Louisiana to execute Buddhist over religious freedom claim – SCOTUSblog

CAPITAL CASE

A divided Supreme Court declined to block the execution of Jessie Hoffman, who was put to death on Tuesday night in Louisiana. Four justices would have put Hoffman’s execution on hold – one short of the five needed for a stay.

Hoffman was sentenced to death for the 1996 kidnapping, robbery, rape, and murder of Mary “Molly” Elliott. Last month Louisiana announced its plans to use nitrogen hypoxia, the use of nitrogen gas to cause asphyxiation, for executions. The state notified Hoffman 10 days later that it would use the procedure.

Hoffman went to federal court to challenge the planned method of execution, arguing that it violated both the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and a federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, that protects the religious liberties of prisoners. Hoffman, who is a practicing Buddhist, contended that the use of nitrogen gassing would interfere with his ability to follow a Buddhist tradition of meditative breathing at the time of death.

A federal district court in Louisiana stayed Hoffman’s execution, agreeing that he was likely to prevail on his claim that the use of nitrogen hypoxia would violate the Eighth Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the district court’s order, prompting Hoffman to come to the Supreme Court on Sunday seeking a stay of his execution and review of the 5th Circuit’s decision.

In a brief unsigned order, the court rejected Hoffman’s request to stay his execution. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated, without any explanation, that they would have granted his application.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a two-paragraph dissent from the decision to allow Hoffman’s execution to go forward. Gorsuch observed that the district court had rejected Hoffman’s religious freedom claim “based on its own ‘find[ing]’ about the kind of breathing Mr. Hoffman’s faith requires.” But that conclusion, Gorsuch emphasized, “contravened the fundamental principle” that courts should not weigh in on whether someone’s religious beliefs are sincere.

Moreover, Gorsuch continued, the 5th Circuit did not address this “apparent legal error” or even Hoffman’s religious freedom claim itself. The failure to do so, Gorsuch reasoned, leaves the Supreme Court “poorly position to address it.” He would therefore have granted both Hoffman’s request for a stay and his petition for review, thrown out the 5th Circuit’s decision, and sent the case back to the court of appeals for it to consider the religious freedom claim.

The court is not yet scheduled to act on Hoffman’s petition for review. If Hoffman is executed as scheduled, the petition will be thrown out as no longer an active controversy.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.