# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 10 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ch ris to ph er S. Mc Dan ie l,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Ann e Pre cy th e,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 17
Fi le d: Ju ly 27, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , an d HOLME S

, Dis tri ct 1

Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ch ris to ph er McDa ni el su ed th e Dire ct or of th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of

Co rrec ti on s, al le gi ng th at th e Dire ct or ’s pr oc ed ur es fo r in vi ti ng ci ti zen s to wit ne ss

The Hon or ab le P.K. Hol m es , III, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.ex ecu ti on s vi ol at e McDa ni el ’s rig ht s un de r th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se of th e Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t. The Dire ct or m ov ed to di sm is s McDa ni el ’s cl ai m on th e gr ou nd s th at

Mc D an ie l la ck s st an di ng an d th at th e Dire ct or is im m un e fro m su it un de r th e

El e v en th Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, an d th e Dire ct o r 2

ap pe al s. We affir m

.

I.

Bec au se th is ap pe al ari se s fro m th e de ni al of a m ot io n to di sm is s, we acce pt as

tru e th e well -p le ad ed al le ga ti on s in th e co m pl ai nt

. The fo ll owi ng fact ua l acco un t is

de riv ed fro m

McDan ie l’s co m

pl ai nt

.

Mi ss ou ri la w req ui res th e Dire ct or of th e Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s to in vi te

“ at le as t ei gh t rep ut ab le ci ti zen s,” in ad di ti on to th e st at e at to rn ey ge ne ral

, to wit ne ss

each Mi ss ou ri e x e c u t i on

. Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 54 6.7 40

. The rel ev an t st at ut e pr ov id es

th at “ no pe rs on un de r twe n t y- o n e y ears of ag e sh al l be al lo wed to wit ne ss th e

ex ecu ti on ,” bu t do es no t ot he rwis e res tri ct th e Dire ct or ’s di sc ret io n. Id

. The

Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s ha s no po li cy go ve rn in g ho w th e Dire ct or de ci de s who m

to in vi te as wit ne ss es , an d th e se le ct io n of wit ne ss es is le ft to th e un fet te red di sc ret io n

of th e Dir ect or

.

Dire ct or Geo rg e Lom

ba rd i em plo y ed cert ai n pr oc ed ur es in co nn ect io n wit h th e

se le ct io n of wit ne ss es

. A pe rs on who se ek s to wit ne ss an ex ecu ti on m us t su bm it an

ap pl ic at io n fo rm pu bl is he d by t h e D e pa rtment. The fo rm req ue st s ba si c pe rs on al

in fo rm at io n a nd cri m in al hi st or y , an d th en as ks th e ap pl ic an t to “ [e]xp la in why y ou

are req ue st in g to be a w i t n e s s to an ex ecu ti on in th e St at e of Mi ss ou ri.” The fo rm

al so in qu ire s as fo ll ows : “ Are y ou , or ha ve y ou ev er be en , a m em be r of an y gr ou p or

The Ho n or ab le Nan et te K. Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-or ga ni zat io n op po se d to

, or in su pp or t of

, th e de a t h p e n a l t y? ” If so , th e ap pl ic an t

m us t “ li st th e n am es of t he org an iz at io n( s) .”

McDa ni el is an in ve st ig at iv e jou rn al is t who fo rm erl y rep or te d fo r St

. Lou is

Pu bl ic Rad io an d no w wor ks as a de at h pe na lt y rep or te r fo r Bu zzFe ed News. As pa rt

of hi s w o rk

, McDa ni el ha s writ te n se ve ral art ic le s cri ti ci zi ng Mi ss ou ri’s ex ecu ti on

pr act ic es

. In Ja nu ary 20 14

, McDa ni el su bm it te d an ap pl ic at io n to wit ne ss a Mi ss ou ri

ex ecu ti on a s a n em

pl oyee of St

. Lou is Pu bl ic Rad io

. In res po ns e to th e fo rm ’s

in st ru ct io n, McDa ni el ex pl ai ne d th at he was se ek in g to wit ne ss a Mi ss ou ri ex ecu ti on

“ [t]o en su re th at th is so le m n ta sk is carr ie d ou t co ns ti tu ti on al ly.” The Dep art m en t of

Co rrec ti on s n ev er re sp on de d t o M cDan ie l’s re qu es t, and th e Dire ct or di d n ot in vi te

McDa ni el to wit ne ss an y of M is so ur i’s s ev en te en su bs eq ue nt ex ecu ti on s.

In Aug us t 20 16

, McDa ni el su ed Dire ct or Lom ba rd i in hi s of

fic ia l cap aci ty

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. The co m pl ai nt al le ge s th at th e Dir e c t o r vi ol at ed th e Due

Pro ces s Cl au se be cau se hi s “ po li ci es an d cu st om s rel at ed to th e se le ct io n of ex ecu ti on

wit ne ss es ” gi ve th e Dire ct or “ un br id le d di sc ret io n to de ny an ad ul t ci ti zen th e be ne fit

of se rv in g as an ex ecu ti on wit ne ss b a s ed on th e in di vi du al ’s vi ewp oi nt

, ex pr es si ve

or pr es s act iv it y , or m em

be rs hi p in a ch ur ch or ot he r or ga ni zat io n.” In ot he r wor ds

, th e co m pl ai nt al le ge s th at th e Dire ct or ’s po li ci es “ pr ov i d e t h e op po rtu ni ty fo r

di sc riminat io n ba se d on vi ewp oi nt or ret al ia ti on f o r F i r st Am en dm en t pr ot ect ed

act iv it y .” In su pp or t of thi s clai m , th e co m pl ai nt all eg es th at “ ev ery ap pl ic an t who

, li ke [Mc Dan ie l], ex pr es se d a de si re to en su re th at ex ecu ti on [s ] were c a r r i e d ou [t]

p ro pe rly an d co ns ti tu ti on al ly was de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to wit ne ss an ex ecu t i o n

. ”

The co m pl ai nt se ek s an in

jun ct io n r e qu iri ng th e Dire ct or to es ta bl is h a po li cy

go ve rn in g t he sel ect io n o f ex ecu ti on wit ne ss es

.

The Dire ct or m ov ed to di sm is s th e co m pl ai nt

, arg ui ng th at McDa ni el la ck ed

st an di ng to br in g hi s ch al le ng e, be cau se he ha d no t su ffer ed an in jury in fact

. The

Dire ct or al so as se rte d th at he was im m un e fro m su it un de r th e Elev en th Am en dm en t.

-3

-The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n be cau se it co nc lu de d th at McDa ni el ha d su ffer ed

an in jury an d th at th e Dire ct or was no t im m un e fro m a su it fo r in

jun ct iv e rel ie f un de r

th e ru le est ab li sh ed in Ex pa rt e Y ou ng , 20 9 U.S. 1 23 (19 08 ).

The Di r ect or fil ed no ti ce of an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al on th e qu es ti on of

im m un it y un de r th e Elev en th Am en dm en t. Ann e Prec y th e th en su ccee de d Lom ba rd i

as Dire ct or , a nd sh e was su bs ti tu te d a s t he ap pe ll an t. Se e Fed . R . Ap p. P. 43 (c)( 2)

. The Dire ct or no w reas se rts th at McDa ni el la ck s st an di ng an d th at sh e is im m un e fro m

su it un de r th e Elev en th Am en dm en t. In a dd it io n, Di rect or Prec y th e arg ue s t ha t t he

cas e is m oo t be cau se no th in g in th e reco rd de m on st rat es th at sh e in te nd s to m ai nt ai n

Dire ct or Lom

ba rd i’s al le ge dl y

un co ns ti tu ti on al po li ci es

.

II.

The co ur t of ap pe al s typic al ly ha s juri sd ic ti on to he ar ap pe al s on ly fro m fin al

de ci si on s of th e di st ric t co ur t, se e 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, bu t we m ay he ar an in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al rai si ng a cl ai m of Elev en th Am en dm en t im m un it y whe n th e di st ric t co ur t ha s reject ed an im m

un it y de fen se rai se d by a st at e de fen da nt

. P.R. Aqu ed uc t & Se wer

Aut h. v. Met ca lf & Edd

y, In c. , 50 6 U.S. 13 9, 14 7 (1 99 3)

. Our rev ie w is li m it ed to th e

im m un it y de fen se an d ot he r is su es t h at are “ in ex tri cab ly in te rtwi ne d” wit h it

. Ent er gy , Ark., In c. v. Neb ra sk

a , 24 1 F .3d 97 9, 9 87 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.

Fed eral co ur ts

, ho wev er, m us t always en su re tha t a di sp ut e pr es en ts a cas e or

co nt ro ve rs y un de r Arti cl e III su ch th at an as se rti on of juri sd ic ti on is pr op er. Se e St eel

Co . v . C it iz en s fo r a Be t t e r En v ’t , 5 23 U.S. 8 3, 94 -9 5 (1 99 8)

. Thu s, be fo re we can

reac h th e Dire ct or ’s Elev en th Am en d men t a r gu m en t, we m us t co ns id er whe th er

McDa ni el ha s st an di ng an d whe th er th e ap pe al ha s be co m e m o o t

. C a ld er on v.

Ash mus , 52 3 U.S. 74 0, 74 5 & n.2 (1 99 8)

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on s

de no vo

. Heg lu nd v. Ait

ki n Co un ty

, 87 1 F.3 d 57 2, 57 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ); Bal og h v.

Lo mba rd i , 81 6 F .3d 53 6, 5 44 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

.

-4

-A.

St an di ng is an es se nt ia l pa rt of th e cas e-o r-co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t of Arti cl e

III. Lu ja n v. Defs

. of W

il dl if e , 50 4 U.S. 55 5, 56 0 (1 99 2)

. To de m on st rat e Arti cl e III

st a n d i n g , a p l ai nt iff “ m

us t ha ve (1 ) su ffer ed an in jury in fact

, (2 ) th at is fai rly

tra ceab le to th e ch al le ng ed co nd u ct of th e de fen da nt

, an d (3 ) th at is li ke ly to be

red res se d by a fav or ab le jud ic ia l de ci si on .” Sp ok eo
, In c. v. Rob in s , 13 6 S. Ct

. 15 40

, 15 47 (2 01 6)

. The Dire ct or d is pu te s on ly whe th er McDa ni el ha s su ffer ed an in jury

in fact

.

“ To es ta bl is h in

ju r y i n f a c t

, a pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow th at he or sh e su ffer ed ‘an

in va si on of a le ga ll y pr ot ect ed in te r e s t ’ t ha t is ‘con cret e an d pa rti cu la riz ed ’ an d

‘actu al or im m in en t, no t co njec tu ral or hypo th et ic al .’ ” Id

. at 15 48 (q uo ti ng Defs

. of

W il dl if e , 50 4 U.S. at 56 0)

. The Dire ct or arg ue s th at McDa ni el ha s n o le ga ll y

pr ot ect ed in te r e s t in wit ne ss in g an ex ecu ti on be cau se th ere is no ge ne ral rig ht to

wit ne ss an ex ecu ti on

.

Alt ho ug h th is co ur t ha s no t reco gn iz ed a rig ht to wit ne ss an ex ecu ti on , se e Rice

v. Kemp ker

, 37 4 F.3 d 67 5, 67 8 & n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ), McDa ni el st il l ha s a co gn iz ab le

in te res t in se rv in g as a wit ne ss

. McDa ni el ’s wor k as a jo u r n a l i s t ha s in vo lv ed

ex te ns iv e rev ie w of Mi ss ou ri’s ex ecu ti on pr ot oc ol s. The op po rtu ni ty to wit ne ss a li ve

ex ecu ti on un do ub te dl y wou ld faci li ta te McDa ni el ’s wor k as a de at h pe na lt y rep or te r

fo r B u z z F e e d News; de nyin g hi m th at op po rtu ni ty in te rfer es wit h hi s ab il it y to

m ax im iz e hi s pr of

es si on al well -b ei ng

. W e kn ow th at “ th e de si re to us e or ob se rv e an

an im al sp eci es , ev en fo r pu rel y es th et ic pu rp os es , is un de ni ab ly a co gn iz ab le in te res t

fo r pu rp os es of st an di ng ,” Defs

. of W il dl if e , 50 4 U.S. at 56 2- 63

, an d we se e no reas on why McDa ni el ’s in te res t in vi ewin g an ex ecu ti on fo r pr of es si on al pu rp os es is an y le ss

co gn iz ab le

. Thi s is no t to sa y th at he is en ti tl ed to wit ne ss an ex ecu ti on , bu t on ly th at

he is in jure d b y hi s i na bi li ty to d o s o.

-5

-O f c ou rs e, if an in jury is m erel y sp ecu la ti ve or hypo th et ic al

, th en i t i s

in su ffi ci en t to sa ti sf

y th e co ns ti tu ti on al m in im um

. Bu t as McDa ni el ’s c h a l le ng e is

to th e le ga li ty o f th e pr oc ed ur es us ed to se le ct wit ne ss es , h e ne ed no t al le ge th at he

in ev it ab ly wou ld be se le ct ed to se rv e as a wit ne ss bu t fo r th e al le ge dl y un la wfu l

po li ci es an d cu st om s of th e D e pa rtment. In an eq ua l pr ot ect io n cas e, fo r ex am pl e,

“ [w]hen th e go ve rn m en t erect s a ba rri er tha t m ak es it m or e di ffi cu lt fo r m em be rs of

on e gr ou p to ob ta in a be ne fit th an it is fo r m em be rs of an ot he r gr ou p, a m em be r of th e

fo rm er gr ou p se ek in g to ch a l l e n g e t he ba rri er ne ed no t al le ge th at he wou ld ha ve

ob ta in ed th e be ne fit b u t f o r t h e b arri er in or de r to es ta bl is h st an di ng .” Ne. Fla

. Ch ap te r of th e Ass oc ia te d Gen

. Co nt ra ct or s of Am. v. Ci ty of Ja cks on vi ll e , 50 8 U.S.

65 6, 66 6 (19 93 ). The in ab il it y to co m pe te on eq ua l foo ti ng is an in jury in fact

. Id

. ;

se e Gra tz v. Bol li ng er , 53 9 U.S. 24 4, 26 2 (2 00 3)

. A rel ig io us or ga ni zat io n li ke wis e

sa ti sf ie s th e in jury-in -fac t req ui rem en t whe n it al le ge s th at th e go ve rn m en t ha s

ex cl ud ed th e or ga ni zat io n fro m an op po rtu ni ty fo r go ve rn m en t be ne fit s ba se d on it s

rel ig io us ch arac te r. Se e Tr in it y Lu th er an Ch ur ch of Co lu mbi a, In c. v. Co mer , 13 7 S.

Ct . 20 12 , 20 22 (20 17 ).

McDa ni el ’s al le ga ti on s of in jury are of a si m il ar na tu re. He co m pl ai ns th at th e

Dire ct or en

joy s “ un br id le d di sc ret io n” to se le ct wit ne ss es to ex ecu ti on s. He cl ai m s

th at th e Dire ct or ’s po li ci es an d cu st om s fo r s e l e c t i ng wit ne ss es al lo w fo r

di sc riminat io n ba se d on vi e w p oi nt

, ret al ia ti on fo r ex pr es si ve act iv it y , or ex cl us io n

ba se d on m em

be rs hi p in a ch ur ch or ot he r or ga ni zat io n. He as se rts th at th e Dire ct or

req ue st s in fo rm at io n ab ou t an ap pl ic an t’s as so ci at i o n w i t h gr ou ps th at su pp or t or

op po se th e de a t h p e n a l t y

. And he al le ge s th at th e Dire ct or ha s de ni ed ap pl ic at io ns

fro m ev ery pe rs on who ex pr es se d a de si re to en su re th at ex ecu ti on s were carr ie d ou t

co ns ti tu ti on al ly. The se al le ga ti on s an d r e as on ab le in fere nc es m ad e fro m th em

su pp or t a pl au si bl e cl ai m th at an ap pl ic an t’s vi ewp oi nt is a fact or us ed by th e Dire ct or

whe n co ns id eri ng who m to in vi te as a wit ne ss

. W he th er McDa ni el ’s cl ai m ha s

m eri t— th at is

, whe t h er th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se real ly pr ev en ts th e St at e fro m

ret ai ni ng un br id le d di sc ret io n to se le ct ex ecu ti on wit ne ss es or fro m co ns id eri ng an

-6

-ap pl ic an t’s vi ewp oi nt —i s di st in ct fro m whe th er McDa ni el ha s su ffer ed an in jury in

fact

. Se e Ca rl

se n v. GameS to

p, In c. , 83 3 F.3 d 90 3, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). McDa ni el ’s

al le ga ti on s th at th e Dire ct or ’s po li ci es pr ov id e an op po rtu ni ty to ex cl ud e McDa ni el

ba se d on hi s vi ewp oi nt an d th at th e Dire ct or ha s ex cl ud ed McDa ni el an d al l

ap pl ic an ts sh ari ng hi s pa rti cu la r vi ewp oi nt are su ffi ci en t to gi ve hi m st an di ng to pr es s

th e cl ai m

.

B.

The Dire ct or co nt en ds th at ev en if McDan ie l has st an di ng , hi s clai m is m oo t.

To es ta bl is h a cas e o r c o nt ro ve rs y , McDa ni el m us t sh ow th at th ere is an on go in g

co nt ro ve rs y th ro ug ho ut ap pe ll at e rev ie w. Io wa Pro t. & Adv oc ac y Se rv s. v. Ta na ge r,

In c. , 42 7 F.3 d 54 1, 54 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Dire ct or Prec y th e arg ue s th at McDa ni el ha s

fai le d on th is po in t, be cau se he ne ve r al le ge d th at sh e w o u l d c o n t in ue Dire ct or

Lom ba rd i’s po li ci es an d cu st om s. The ru le s of ci vi l pr oc ed ur e reco gn iz e th at whe re

a su cces so r of

fic ia l “ do es no t in te nd to pu rs ue th e po li cy of [h er] pr ed eces so r whi ch

ga ve ris e to th e la wsu it ,” t h e su cces so r m ay “ se ek to ha ve th e act io n di sm is se d as

m oo t.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 25 (d ), ad vi so ry co m m it te e’s no te to 19 61 am en dm en t.

As th e reco rd st an ds be fo re us , ho wev er, th ere is a co nt in u i n g co nt ro ve rs y

. McDa n i e l co m

pl ai ns th at th e Dire ct or ha s vi ol at ed th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se by

ap pl y in g cu st om s an d pr oc ed ur es th at pe rm it un br id le d di sc ret io n to ex cl ud e pe rs on s

fro m wit ne ss in g ex ecu ti on s ba se d o n vi ewp oi nt

, ex pr es si ve act iv it y , or rel ig io us

affi li at io n. Dire ct or Prec y th e was ap po in te d aft er th is ap pe al was do ck et ed

, an d sh e

ha s no t an no un ced ne w po li ci es or rep res en te d to th is co ur t th at sh e wil l de pa rt fro m

t h e p ol ic ie s of he r pr ed eces so r. McDa ni el ’s al le ga ti on is no t pe rs on al to fo r mer

Dire ct or Lom

ba rd i, bu t rat he r a ch al le ng e to th e st an di ng po li ci es an d cu st om s of th e Dep art m en t. Cf

. Sp ome r v. Li tt le to n , 41 4 U.S. 51 4, 52 0- 21 (1 97 4)

. Giv en th at th ere

ha s be en no ch a n g e t o t h e st at us qu o si nc e Dire ct or Prec y th e’s ap po in tm en t, we

co nc lu de th at th e co nt ro ve rs y co nt in ue s. As th e cas e pr oc eed s, ho wev er, we tru st th at

-7

-th e di st ric t co ur t wil l co ns id er whe th er ev id en ce sh ows th at Dire c to r Prec y th e wil l

ad op t di ffer en t po li ci es or cu st om s fro m th os e of Dire ct or Lom ba rd i or “ wil l co nt in ue

th e pr act ic es of [h er] pr ed eces so r.” May or of Phi la de lp hi a v. Edu c. Equ al

. Lea gu e , 41 5 U.S. 6 05 , 62 2 (1 97 4)

.

C.

The Dire ct or ’s ap pe al co nc ern s im m un it y fro m su it un de r th e El e v e n th

Am en dm en t. The Am en dm en t ba rs a su it br ou gh t by a pr iv at e in di vi du al a ga in st a

St at e. Id ah o v. Co eu r d’

Alen e Tr ib e of Id

ah o , 52 1 U.S. 26 1, 26 7- 68 (1 99 7)

. Und er

th e ex cep ti on es ta bl is he d in Ex pa rt e Y ou ng , ho wev er, a pr iv at e pa rty m ay su e st at e

of fic ia ls in th ei r of

fic ia l cap aci ti es fo r pr os pe ct iv e in jun ct iv e rel ie f. Veri

zo n Md. In c.

v. Pub

. Se rv

. Co mm’n of

Md.

, 53 5 U.S. 63 5, 64 5 (2 00 2)

. “ In de te rm in in g whe th er th e

do ct rin e of Ex pa rt e Y

ou ng av oi ds an Elev en th Am en dm en t ba r to su it

, a co ur t ne ed

on ly co nd uc t a ‘stra ig ht fo rward in qu iry in to whe th er [th e] co m pl ai nt a l l e g es an

on go in g vi ol at io n of fed eral la w an d se ek s rel ie f p r o p e rly ch arac te riz ed as

pr os pe ct iv e.’” Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Co eu r d’ Alen e , 52 1 U.S. at 29 6)

.

McDa ni el ’s co m

pl ai nt al le ge s th at th e Dire ct or ’s po li ci es an d cu st om s fo r

se le ct in g ex ecu ti on wit n e ss es cau se on go in g vi ol at io ns of th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se

. McDa ni el se ek s pr os pe ct iv e rel ie f—t ha t is

, an in jun ct io n r e q ui rin g th e Dire ct or to

ceas e i n v i t in g pe op le to wit ne ss ex ecu ti on s un ti l sh e ha s “ es ta bl is he d a po li cy fo r

se le ct io n of ex ecu ti on wit ne ss es ” t ha t acco rd s wit h th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se

. The

“ str ai ght fo rw ard in qu iry” se t fo rth by th e Su pr em e Co ur t, th eref or e, de m on st rat es tha t

McDa ni el ’s su it is no t b arre d b y th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t.

The Dire ct or res po nd s by cl ai m in g th at Ex pa rt e Y ou ng is li m i t ed to

“ en fo rcem en t acti on s” by st at e of fic ia ls

, an d th at de ci si on s abo ut who m to in vi te as

ex ecu ti on wit ne ss es are ou ts id e th at cat eg or y

. To be su re, Ex pa rt e Y ou ng pr ov id es

th at a su it se ek in g to en

joi n en fo rcem en t of a st at e st at ut e m ay pr oc eed ag ai ns t a st at e

-8

-of

fic er on ly whe re th e of

fic er ha s “ so m e co nn ect io n wit h th e en fo rcem en t of th e act .”

20 9 U.S. at 15 7. But th is do es no t m ean th at a su it m ay pr oc eed on ly w he n i t s eek s

to en joi n an “ en fo rcem en t act io n.” So lo ng as a st at e of fic ia l is gi vi ng effe ct to a st at e

st at ut e in a m an n er th at al le ge dl y in jure s a pl ai nt iff an d vi ol at es hi s co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht s, an act io n to en

joi n im pl em en ta ti on of th e st at ut e or fo r de cl arat or y rel ie f is

av ai la b l e a g a i n s t th e st at e of fic ia l. The re ne ed no t be an en fo rcem en t pr oc eed in g.

Se e, e.g

. , Ca lz on e v. Haw le y , 86 6 F.3 d 86 6, 8 6 9

- 7 0 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 17 ); Mo. Pro t. &

Adv oc ac y Se rv s., In c. v. Ca rn ah an , 49 9 F .3d 80 3, 8 07 (8t h C ir. 20 07 ); L.A. C ou nt y

Bar Ass ’n v. Eu

, 97 9 F.2 d 69 7, 70 4 (9 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Th e Dire ct or ha s au th or it y to

im pl em en t th e Mi ss ou ri st at ut e on ex ecu ti on wit ne ss es , an d sh e ha s im pl em en te d or

is li ke ly to im

pl em en t th e st at ut e. As su ch

, Ex pa rt e Y ou ng pe rm it s McDa ni el ’s su it

ch al le ng in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he Dire ct or ’s im

pl em en ta ti on

.

Seco nd

, th e Dire ct or arg ue s th at th e Ex pa rt e Y ou ng ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y

to McDa nie l’ s sui t be ca

use his cl ai m “ im

pl ic at es Mi ss ou ri’s sp eci al so ve rei gn in te res t

in c arrying ou t m in is te ria l act io ns ne ces sa ry to im pl em en t cap it al pu ni sh m en t.”

Co eu r d’ Alen e he ld th at th e Elev en th Am en dm en t b a r red an In di an Trib e’s su it fo r

pr os pe ct iv e rel ie f ag ai ns t st at e of f i c i a l s whe re th e act io n im pl ic at ed th e St at e’s

“ sp eci al so ve rei gn ty in te res ts ” in it s la nd an d wate rs , an d was “ cl os e to th e fu nc ti on al

eq ui va le nt ” of a qu ie t ti tl e su it t h a t w a s u n di sp ut ed ly ba rred by th e Elev en th

Am en dm en t. 5 21 U.S. at 2 81 -8 2, 2 87 -8 8.

McDa ni el ’s effo rt to req ui re th e pr o m ul ga ti on of a po li cy th at cab in s th e

Dire ct or ’s d is cret io n to se le ct ex ecu ti on wit ne ss es do es no t im pl ic at e th e sa m e so rt

of “ un us ua l” si tu at io n in vo lv in g “ sp eci al so ve rei gn ty in te res ts .” Id

. at 28 1. Eve n if

McDa ni el su ccee ds , t he rel ie f so ug ht wou l d n o t i n t erfe re wit h th e St at e’s ab il it y to

en fo rce it s cap it al pu ni sh m en t st at ut e or ev en affe ct it s au th or it y to reg ul at e su ch

m at te rs as th e nu m

be r of rep or te rs pr es en t or th e p erm is si bl e b eh av io r of wit ne ss es

at ex ecu ti on s. Aga in

, we ex pr es s no vi ew on th e m eri ts of McDa ni el ’s cl ai m , bu t we

co nc lu de th at a la wsu it se ek in g in jun c ti ve rel ie f to br in g th e Dire ct or ’s wit ne ss

-

-9

-se le ct io n pro ces s in to co m pl ia nc e wit h th e Co ns ti tu ti on fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of Ex

pa rt e Y ou ng an d m ay pro ceed in fed eral co ur t.

* * *

The or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t is affi rm ed

. McDa ni el ’s m ot io n to ho ld th e cas e

in ab ey an ce i s d en ie d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-