Federal Court Blocks Idaho Executions Until Media Access Improves
On April 29, 2025, the federal court for the District of Idaho issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state Department of Corrections (DOC) from carrying out any executions until it improves access for members of the media. The ruling came in a suit filed by AP News, East Idaho News and the Idaho Statesman, which is a subsidiary of the McClatchy Co. LLC. They sued DOC Director Josh Tewalt in 2024, seeking to force him to allow them access to the Medical Team Room during executions.
After a condemned prisoner is finished in the Execution Preparation Room, he is rolled on a gurney to the Execution Chamber for insertion of an IV line. However, as the Court recalled, “[n]o lethal injection drugs are administered by the medical team while in the Execution Chamber.” Rather, the IV lines that have been attached to the prisoner are fed through holes in the wall of the Medical Team Room, where members of the execution team then go to administer the lethal injection.
DOC allows no media access to this last room, not even by closed circuit camera. Instead, the Maximum Security Institution (MSI) Warden stands inside to announce when the lethal injection has begun. Plaintiffs argued that “viewing the method and manner used to execute a person has been historically open to the public and viewing the entirety of an execution plays a significant positive role in the public’s understanding of modern execution procedures.”
The district court began by noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit first found a right of access to executions in Cal. First Amendment Coal. v. Woodford, 299 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002). More recently, the appellate court had specifically extended that right to include access to “the sounds of the entire execution process,” the district court recalled, pointing to First Amendment Coal. of Ariz., Inc. v. Ryan, 938 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2019).
To weigh these rights, the district court said it must consider “(1) whether the proceeding has ‘historically been open’ to the public; and (2) whether public access plays a ‘significant positive role’ in the proceeding, again citing Cal. First Amendment Coal. v. Woodford. Finding the answer to both questions was “yes” indicated that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, which is the first test for a preliminary injunction. Here the district court noted that executions have traditionally been open to public view precisely because that openness has perceived public benefit, and it has only been with the advance of modern technology that such access has been impeded.
As for the second test, the likely irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction, the district court also came down on Plaintiff’s side, quoting the holding in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1979), that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
As for the last two tests, the district court said that “[w]hen the … government is a party, the balance of equities and the public interest factors merge.” Defendants argued that an injunction would impede their ability to carry out their execution function, but the district court called that argument “unavailing.” Rather, as Defendants also acknowledged, there were no pending death warrants, so shutting down the execution chamber to install video and audio links to the Medical Team Room would not be disruptive.
Accordingly, the preliminary injunction was granted. Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys Eric A. Pedersen and Wendy Olson of Stoel Rives, LLP in Boise. See: AP v. Tewalt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82563 (D. Idaho).
As PLN reported, Idaho has been zealous about execution secrecy, sending Tewalt with a briefcase of cash to buy drugs compounded by a Washington pharmacy from the parking lot of a Tacoma Walmart in 2012, and getting MSI Warden Tim Richardson to buy more from the trunk of a car pulled off the road outside the prison gates in 2024. [See: PLN, May 2025, p.20.]
Additional source: East Idaho News
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
A.P. v. Tewalt
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82563 (D. Idaho) |
| Level | District Court |