The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Texas must allow a death row inmate to have a pastor pray over him and touch him as the prisoner is lethally injected, setting a broader precedent for religious rights of incarcerated individuals.
The high court ruled 8-1 in the decision, determining that the state of Texas’s arguments over potential disruptions to the execution process were not sufficient to overcome religious freedom rights under a law passed in 2000 known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The Supreme Court in September granted a stay request to Texas inmate John Ramirez, who was to be put to death for the 2004 murder of Corpus Christi convenience store clerk Pablo Castro.
SUPREME COURT HEARS CASE CHALLENGING TEXAS LAW PROHIBITING PRAYER AND TOUCH DURING EXECUTIONS
Ramirez was initially denied a request for silent prayer and touch by his pastor in lower court decisions, but a majority of justices ruled in favor of backing a broader interpretation of the government’s duty to cater to the religious practices of prisoners.
“There is a rich history of clerical prayer at the time of a prisoner’s execution, dating back well before the founding of our Nation,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “By passing RLUIPA, Congress determined that prisoners like Ramirez have a strong interest in avoiding substantial burdens on their religious exercise, even while confined … Because it is possible to accommodate Ramirez’s sincere religious beliefs without delaying or impeding his execution, we conclude that the balance of equities and the public interest favor his requested relief.”
Texas offered a variety of arguments against allowing prayer and touch while an inmate is lethally injected. One concern was that a minister could injure the inmate or interfere with the procedure. Another was that a verbal statement could traumatize victims or witnesses and prevent communication between those carrying out the execution.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter in the case, arguing on procedural grounds that Ramirez did not properly present his objection to the efforts to prevent his minister from touching him or praying aloud during an execution procedure.
The 22-page opinion also did not address accommodations for ministers if they are requested to be present during other types of executions, such as those using a firing squad, electric chair, or gas chamber.