Opinion ID: 4469266
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Adoption of Execution Protocol. Plaintiffs are Rev. Stephen C. Griffith and Senator Ernie Chambers (hereinafter collectively Plaintiffs). Griffith is a retired minister. Chambers is a member of the Nebraska State Legislature. Both are Nebraska citizens. Plaintiffs’ allegations in this case center on DCS’ adoption of an Execution Protocol. After the 2016 general election in which Nebraska voters, via referendum, repealed a 2015 law that abolished the death penalty, DCS sought to make revisions to its Execution Protocol. The Execution Protocol is a - 289 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports GRIFFITH v. NEBRASKA DEPT. OF CORR. SERVS. Cite as 304 Neb. 287 regulation that sets forth the process to be followed when carrying out a death sentence. Generally, the Execution Protocol provides for how drugs for lethal injection procedures shall be obtained, verified, and maintained; notification requirements; and the process for carrying out executions. 69 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 11 (2017). Plaintiffs allege that after DCS announced that it was considering revisions to the Execution Protocol and would be holding a public hearing on the proposed revisions, Griffith requested information regarding the proposed revisions from DCS. Plaintiffs admit that DCS gave Griffith a draft regulation, but they contend that he was also entitled to a fiscal impact statement and “working copies” of the proposed revisions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-907(2) (Reissue 2014) and that DCS did not give him these materials. Both Griffith and Chambers later testified at the public hearing on the proposed revisions to the Execution Protocol. They assert, however, that they were unable to provide fully informed testimony, because Griffith was not given access to all the materials to which he was entitled under § 84-907. Following the public hearing, DCS adopted the Execution Protocol. Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against DCS and the following individuals in their official capacities: Gov. John Peter Ricketts, Attorney General Doug Peterson, and DCS director Scott Frakes (hereinafter collectively Defendants). In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs contended that the Execution Protocol should be declared invalid for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs contended that because Griffith was not given access to all the materials to which he was entitled under § 84-907, the Execution Protocol was adopted without compliance with statutory procedures. Second, and alternatively, Plaintiffs alleged that if “[DCS] did not prepare any drafts or revisions of the . . . Execution Protocol and did not consult - 290 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports GRIFFITH v. NEBRASKA DEPT. OF CORR. SERVS. Cite as 304 Neb. 287 with anyone regarding the [Execution] Protocol,” the adoption of the Execution Protocol violated the due process clause of the Nebraska State Constitution. Plaintiffs requested a declaration that the Execution Protocol was void. They also asked that Defendants be enjoined from carrying out any executions until a new Execution Protocol was adopted. District Court’s Dismissal. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After a hearing, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In a written order, the district court found that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the action. The district court found that because the Execution Protocol did not affect Plaintiffs’ rights, they did not have traditional common-law standing to challenge the validity of the regulation. The district court also found that Plaintiffs did not fall within any of the exceptions to the traditional common-law standing doctrine. It therefore dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed, and we granted their petition to bypass the Nebraska Court of Appeals. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Plaintiffs assign multiple errors on appeal, but they can effectively be condensed into one: that the district court erred in finding that they did not have standing.