Supreme Court Hears Argument For Case On Death Row Inmate’s Religious Request

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday regarding a case about a man who desired to have his pastor lay hands on him and pray out loud during his execution. 

The death row inmate, John Henry Ramirez, 37, was convicted of fatally stabbing a man during a convenience store robbery in Corpus Christi, Texas, that occurred in 2004.

The justices had different reactions to the request. Some reportedly stated that it was a humble one that honored the man’s right to practice his religion as he died. Others were concerned about this leading to more special petitions for the execution chamber. 

“What’s going to happen,” Justice Samuel Alito asked, “when the next prisoner says that I have a religious belief that he should touch my knee? He should hold my hand? He should put his hand over my heart? He should be able to put his hand on my head?”

As reported by The New York Times:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked about requests to have more than one spiritual adviser in the execution chamber and about last-minute conversions to new faiths. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked about a request for “bread and wine in the execution room.” Justice Alito worried that judges would be required “to go through the whole human anatomy” to decide where touching was permitted.

Some justices were more sympathetic. “You should have a pastor to help guide you to the other place,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

However, Seth Kretzer, the lawyer for Ramirez, argued that Texas had permitted physical touch and prayers to be said aloud by spiritual persons during 572 executions over forty years through 2019.

Justice Kavanaugh stated, “that does not move me at all,” since the spiritual personnel at those executions worked for the prison and were therefore not a potential danger. 

Kavanaugh added that an execution is “a very fraught situation with a lot of potential for issues.”

According to Slate, Kavanaugh also said to Kretzer, “People are moving the goal posts on their claims in order to delay executions…At least, that’s the state’s concern.”

Later on, he added, “This is a potential huge area of future litigation across a lot of areas—sincerity of religious claims. How do we question those? Some things people have talked about are the incentives someone might have to be insincere, behavioral inconsistencies … the religious tradition of the practice. What do we look at to check sincerity? Because that’s a very awkward thing for

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases