Alabama Federal Court Issues Injunction Against Executing Matthew Reeves by Any Method but Nitrogen Hypoxia

An Alabama fed­er­al judge has issued an order halt­ing the sched­uled January 27, 2022 exe­cu­tion of Matthew Reeves (pic­tured).

On January 7, Judge R. Austin Huffaker of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, grant­ed a pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tion pre­vent­ing Alabama from exe­cut­ing Reeves ​“by any method oth­er than nitro­gen hypox­ia.” Huffaker found that Reeves is like­ly to suc­ceed in his claim that the state vio­lat­ed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when prison offi­cials failed to offer him assis­tance to under­stand a form they dis­trib­uted that required him to des­ig­nate a method of execution. 

Reeves, who has an IQ in the upper 60s to low 70s, did not fill out the form, lead­ing pros­e­cu­tors to seek his exe­cu­tion by lethal injec­tion. The state has not sched­uled exe­cu­tions for any pris­on­ers who des­ig­nat­ed nitro­gen hypox­ia as the method of execution.

Alabama is one of three states, along with Mississippi and Oklahoma, that has autho­rized nitro­gen gas exe­cu­tions. No exe­cu­tions have been car­ried out by nitro­gen hypox­ia in the United States. In 2018, the Alabama leg­is­la­ture passed a law adopt­ing exe­cu­tion by nitro­gen hypox­ia as an alter­na­tive in case lethal injec­tion drugs are unavail­able or declared uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The new law grant­ed death-row pris­on­ers 30 days to opt in to the new method. 

In 2006, Alabama courts denied Reeves’ claim that he is intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled and there­fore inel­i­gi­ble for the death penal­ty under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 deci­sion in Atkins v. Virginia. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — one of the nation’s most con­ser­v­a­tive fed­er­al appeals courts — then over­turned Reeves’ death sen­tence, hold­ing that his tri­al lawyer had failed to inves­ti­gate and present sig­nif­i­cant mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence relat­ing to his back­ground and impaired intel­lec­tu­al func­tion­ing. In July 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court sum­mar­i­ly reversed that rul­ing, paving the way for Reeves’ execution.

Reeves argued in the dis­trict court that ​“his gen­er­al cog­ni­tive lim­i­ta­tions and severe­ly lim­it­ed read­ing abil­i­ties ren­dered him unable to read and under­stand the elec­tion form with­out assis­tance.” The form that Reeves was giv­en required an 11^th grade read­ing lev­el to under­stand, but experts have assessed Reeves’ read­ing com­pre­hen­sion at a 1^st grade level.

Alabama has not yet com­plet­ed a pro­to­col for nitro­gen hypox­ia exe­cu­tions and has said it does not expect to be ready to car­ry out such exe­cu­tions until at least April 2022. If Reeves had been able to under­stand the form and select nitro­gen hypox­ia, he would not be eli­gi­ble for exe­cu­tion at this time. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires states to make ​“rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions” for a prisoner’s dis­abil­i­ties. In grant­i­ng the injunc­tion, Judge Huffaker said that Reeves alleged a num­ber of accom­mo­da­tions that were avail­able to the Alabama Department of Corrections, includ­ing that ​“the ADOC could have, among oth­er things, read the form to him, giv­en him more time to under­stand it, per­formed a com­pre­hen­sion check, or used assistive technology.” 

The court found that ​“Reeves has shown a sub­stan­tial like­li­hood of suc­cess on the mer­its of his ADA claim and the equi­ties weigh in his favor. Reeves has there­fore estab­lished his right

to a pre­lim­i­nary injunc­tion that pre­vents the ADOC from exe­cut­ing him by any method oth­er than nitro­gen hypox­ia before his ADA claim can be decid­ed on its merits.”

The Supreme Court’s con­tro­ver­sial 6 – 3 deci­sion rein­stat­ing Reeves’ death sen­tence was ren­dered along par­ti­san lines with­out oral argu­ment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dis­sent­ed, writ­ing, ​“Today’s deci­sion con­tin­ues a trou­bling trend in which this Court strains to reverse sum­mar­i­ly any grants of relief to those fac­ing exe­cu­tion. … In essence, the Court turns ​‘def­er­ence’ [to state court rul­ings] into a rule that fed­er­al habeas relief is nev­er avail­able to those facing execution.”

In October 2021, Alabama exe­cut­ed Willie B. Smith III, who had filed a chal­lenge sim­i­lar to Reeves’. Smith was also intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled. A fed­er­al dis­trict court denied his claim that his rights under the ADA had been vio­lat­ed because the state had not grant­ed him rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions to under­stand the nitro­gen hypox­ia selection form.