BOISE, Idaho — A newly-enacted Idaho law shielding execution procedures from judicial review and public scrutiny is raising concerns about transparency and accountability, according to a published report from the Death Penalty Information Center written by Leah Roemer.
The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reports that Idaho law traditionally “empowers state courts to review and block government actions,” especially those that are “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” However, Roemer states that the bill, signed March 31 by Brad Little, “exempts execution procedures from these oversight requirements.”
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, if the prison director changes execution procedures, “death-sentenced prisoners will only be able to challenge those changes on constitutional grounds,” limiting the scope of legal challenges.
Roemer explains how this could affect ongoing litigation, writing it would likely moot a lawsuit the Idaho Supreme Court was set to review this year.
Additionally, the report states the law could expand secrecy in the execution process. Roemer reports that it “extends anonymity to members of the firing squad and any person or entity that provides technical assistance during the execution process,” raising concerns about transparency.
The DPIC also described how quickly the bill moved through the Legislature, stating “it passed both houses with few objections.” Despite that, some lawmakers, including Melissa Wintrow, raised concerns as they “questioned why the state would limit public and legislative input on procedures, particularly for something as significant as executions.”
According to the DPIC, state officials defended the law, with IDOC (Idaho Department of Correction) Director Bree Derrick testifying that the bill was about “not wanting folks to weigh in — you know, the public or others — to weigh in on rulemaking related to execution procedures specifically.”
However, Roemer reports that the change allows officials to act with “no public notice or judicial oversight,” aside from constitutional challenges.
Critics argue that even minimal oversight is necessary. The ACLU of Idaho stated, “APA [American Psychological Association] review sets only a minimal standard for government agencies: it simply asks whether a policy is reasonable and not arbitrary,” adding that “eliminating even this modest oversight is particularly troubling given IDOC’s recent record.”
The Death Penalty Information Center further reports that Idaho officials previously “struggled to secure execution drugs,” using “all-cash purchases in parking lots and roadside exchanges.”
The report also highlights a failed execution attempt in which the state “botched its first attempted lethal injection in over a decade,” when officials “unsuccessfully tried for an hour to set an IV line.”
Following that incident, Roemer writes that officials changed the protocol “to allow staff to set a central line,” described as “a more invasive procedure involving major rather than peripheral veins.”
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, critics say the law could also affect ongoing litigation. Prisoner Gerald Pizzuto argued the director “violated the APA by arbitrarily changing the protocol without meeting public accountability requirements,” and his case has been under review.
Pizzuto is described as “terminally ill with bladder cancer” and has been on death row for decades, having faced five execution dates.
The law will first take effect July 1, when the firing squad becomes “Idaho’s primary execution method” — the only state with that distinction.
The DPIC further reported that the state is “spending close to $1 million to convert the execution chamber,” while “$200,000 of pentobarbital expired” following the failed execution.
Roemer adds that executions involve planning, such as “maintaining lines of contact with courts and the government’s office” and “establishing roadblocks and designated areas for protestors,” yet “the law does not clarify the scope of technical assistance.”
The Death Penalty Information Center’s report ultimately highlights broader criminal justice concerns, arguing that a law that “exempts execution procedures” can limit review to constitutional grounds only, allowing changes with “no public notice or judicial oversight” and raising ongoing questions about transparency and accountability in the death penalty system.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
