Louisiana’s execution of a Buddhist is allowed by the courts despite a claim to religious freedom
CAPITAL CASE
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, a practicing Buddhist who argued that nitrogen gassing would interfere in his ability to follow the Buddhist tradition of meditative breath at the time of his death, won a stay of execution by a federal district court. They agreed that Hoffman was likely to win his claim that nitrogen hypoxia would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment. In a brief, unsigned order the court denied Hoffman’s request for a stay of 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
‘ 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. Gorsuch argued that the Supreme Court was “poorly positioned” to address the issue because the 5th Circuit had not addressed the apparent legal error or Hoffman’s religious freedom claim. The court has yet 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.
