Idaho judge urged to force disclosure of execution drugs
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho’s attempt to withhold information about the source of its lethal injection drugs is similar to hiding the type of ammunition used by firing squads or the brand of rope used in a hanging, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho told a state judge on Monday.
The arguments from the ACLU’s Ritchie Eppink came at the close of a trial pitting the Idaho Department of Corrections against a University of Idaho professor who sued for access to execution documents under the state’s Public Records Act.
Similar lawsuits have been filed across the U.S. in recent years with varying results, as prison officials struggle to find lethal injection drug suppliers in the wake of sometimes botched executions.
Professor Aliza Cover, who studies how the public interacts with the death penalty, requested the documents from prison officials in 2017. She sued after the state largely denied her request, and Judge Lynn Norton heard closing arguments in the case on Monday.
Idaho Department of Correction officials fear that revealing information about where they obtained the lethal drugs used in executions in 2011 and 2012 will prompt protests by anti-death penalty advocates and cause other lethal drug suppliers to refuse to sell to the state.
“The public has an interest in its public agencies carrying out lawful orders, which the death warrant is,” said corrections department attorney Jessica Kuehn, referring to the court document that orders an execution to be carried out.
But she characterized the public interest in the source of execution chemicals as “minuscule.”
Kuehn said the Idaho Legislature has given the Board of Correction the authority to determine which documents to withhold from public record releases, and the courtroom is not the forum to contest that.
But Cover’s attorney said her record request was essentially a request for public reassurance that the state is acting appropriately and not resorting to illegal, unethical or unsavory drug suppliers when carrying out executions, Eppink said.
“Instead, the department argues, ‘If we told you where this came from, the public might not allow you to do it again,’” Eppink said. “The Legislature or the market might respond by removing these suppliers from the options that we as society consider acceptable.”
Other states have faced similar lawsuits with mixed results. In Arizona, news organizations including The Associated Press sued in hopes of finding out where prison officials sourced their execution drugs, but a federal judge ruled in 2017 that the media outlets did not show they had a First Amendment right to the information.
A public record lawsuit in Nevada forced that state to reveal the types of drugs it planned to use for lethal injections, and that information prompted three pharmaceutical companies to sue to stop the state from using their drugs in executions.
The pharmaceutical companies contended Nevada prison officials obtained the drugs by subterfuge by having them shipped to a non-prison address. That lawsuit is ongoing.
Chronic pain is the most common reason people give when they enroll in state-approved medical marijuana programs.
That’s followed by stiffness from multiple sclerosis and chemotherapy-related nausea, according to an analysis of 15 states published Monday in the journal Health Affairs.
The study didn’t measure whether marijuana actually helped anyone with their problems, but the patients’ reasons match up with what’s known about the science of marijuana and its chemical components.
“The majority of patients for whom we have data are using cannabis for reasons where the science is the strongest,” said lead author Kevin Boehnke of University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
California became the first state to allow medical use of marijuana in 1996. More than 30 states now allow marijuana for dozens of health problems. Lists of allowable conditions vary by state, but in general, a doctor must certify a patient has an approved diagnosis.
While the U.S. government has approved medicines based on compounds found in the plant, it considers marijuana illegal and imposes limits on research. That’s led to states allowing some diseases and symptoms where rigorous science is lacking. Most of the evidence comes from