40 active1 death war­rants have been issued in the United States thus far in 2025 — more than a third of them were issued by one indi­vid­ual, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, in a process cloaked in secre­cy. The only two states that place author­i­ty sole­ly in the hands of the gov­er­nor to issue an exe­cu­tion war­rant are Florida, which has exe­cut­ed more indi­vid­u­als in 2025 than any oth­er state, and Pennsylvania, which has not exe­cut­ed any­one in over 25 years and where a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions is cur­rent­ly in place. In all oth­er states, courts are deeply involved in the process of issu­ing an exe­cu­tion war­rant, exer­cis­ing an impor­tant check on the final stage in a cap­i­tal punishment case. 

DPI looked at all 27 states that cur­rent­ly per­mit the death penal­ty, includ­ing California, Pennsylvania and Oregon, which have paused exe­cu­tions, to under­stand bet­ter the process of exe­cu­tion war­rants. Among the ques­tions: Who is vest­ed with respon­si­bil­i­ty for set­ting an exe­cu­tion war­rant? What safe­guards ensure that indi­vid­u­als with pend­ing appeals are not exe­cut­ed? What notice is required, if any, between the issuance of the exe­cu­tion war­rant and the execution itself? 

An exe­cu­tion war­rant is an offi­cial doc­u­ment con­vey­ing both the instruc­tion to exe­cute an indi­vid­ual and stat­ing the author­i­ty to do so, usu­al­ly issued by a court or an exec­u­tive body (usu­al­ly the gov­er­nor of a state) to the prison war­den. The war­rant some­times out­lines rel­e­vant legal pro­ceed­ings, the tim­ing for the exe­cu­tion, and some­times the man­ner of exe­cu­tion. The ear­li­est doc­u­ment­ed exe­cu­tion war­rants in the United States date back to the Salem witch tri­als in 1692

At one time, most exe­cu­tion war­rants were issued sole­ly by gov­er­nors — a prac­tice that is now the excep­tion, rather than the rule. In recent decades, leg­is­la­tures gen­er­al­ly expand­ed the role of the judi­cia­ry, requir­ing the courts to weigh in before an exe­cu­tion is set. Courts are best posi­tioned both to under­stand the com­plex­i­ty of the cap­i­tal appeal process, where mul­ti­ple claims can be pend­ing simul­ta­ne­ous­ly in state and fed­er­al court, and to legal­ly pro­tect an indi­vid­ual from exe­cu­tion while appeals remain in consideration. 

Most states also require a peri­od of time, often defined by statute, between issuance of the war­rant and the exe­cu­tion. This ensures that pris­on­ers have some time to legal­ly chal­lenge the exe­cu­tion, includ­ing rais­ing claims that are not ripe before an exe­cu­tion date is set, such as claims of incom­pe­ten­cy. The des­ig­nat­ed peri­od between the issuance of the exe­cu­tion war­rant and the exe­cu­tion date can be as short as sev­en days (Kansas) and as long as a year (Indiana), but most time peri­ods are between 30 and 90 days. Some are quite spe­cif­ic: South Carolina’s statute man­dates that the exe­cu­tion take place on the fourth Friday” after the war­den receives notice from the court that judg­ment below has been affirmed or the appeal dis­missed or aban­doned[.]” Ohio, South Dakota, Arkansas, Kentucky, California, North Carolina, and Mississippi do not define by statute the length of time between the issuance of a war­rant and exe­cu­tion, but all still enshrine a role for the courts the process of deter­min­ing the date. 

Two states stand out in this analy­sis for their devi­a­tion from these norms: Florida and Louisiana. 

In Florida, the gov­er­nor enjoys sole ple­nary author­i­ty to issue exe­cu­tion war­rants. Current Governor Ron DeSantis, who has over­seen eleven exe­cu­tions thus far in 2025, has been crit­i­cized for set­ting exe­cu­tions and decid­ing clemen­cy requests in com­plete secre­cy. In addi­tion, the 30 days allo­cat­ed between the date of the war­rant and exe­cu­tion can be insuf­fi­cient, as was the case of Curtis Windom, exe­cut­ed on August 28, 2025. In fil­ings pri­or to his exe­cu­tion, Mr. Windom’s coun­sel chal­lenged the sched­ul­ing order in his case, argu­ing that they had less than five days between July 29 when the war­rant was signed and August 3, the court-imposed dead­line for fil­ing any suc­ces­sive motions in the case. Former Florida Governor Bob Martinez signed 139 death war­rants in four years, includ­ing for some who had not com­plet­ed all their appeals. 

In February 2025, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry end­ed the state’s 15-year pause on exe­cu­tions, and his call for a resump­tion of the death penal­ty prompt­ed mul­ti­ple dis­trict attor­neys to request exe­cu­tion war­rants for pris­on­ers. In one case, Rapides Parish District Attorney Phillip Terrell sought and obtained an exe­cu­tion war­rant for Larry Roy, only to have it declared null and void” by District Judge Lowell Hazel after attor­neys for Mr. Roy argued that he has not exhaust­ed all of his legal avenues for relief. In two oth­er cas­es, the Louisiana Supreme Court recalled death war­rants for Darrell Draughn and Marcus Reed, agree­ing with the two men that a judge must con­sid­er their state post-con­vic­tion claims before set­ting execution dates. 

Oregon stands out for dif­fer­ent rea­sons. The last exe­cu­tion in the state was in 1997 and in 2011 then-Governor John Kitzhaber declared a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions. Section 137.463 of the state code out­lines the most elab­o­rate process for deter­min­ing whether it is prop­er to issue an exe­cu­tion war­rant of any state DPI reviewed. Among oth­er nov­el­ties, the statute calls for the con­ven­ing of a death war­rant hear­ing in the tri­al court where the death sen­tence was hand­ed down, in the pres­ence of the indi­vid­ual sen­tenced and their attor­ney. The hear­ing is to ascer­tain whether the indi­vid­ual sen­tenced to death is com­pe­tent to be exe­cut­ed, to appoint coun­sel for any post-con­vic­tion pro­ceed­ings if the indi­vid­ual is eli­gi­ble; and to deter­mine if the indi­vid­ual intends to chal­lenge their sen­tence or conviction. 

The next exe­cu­tion sched­uled in Florida is that of David Joseph Pittman on September 172025

Citation Guide
Footnotes
  1. 14 addi­tion­al death war­rants sched­uled for 2025 are con­sid­ered inac­tive,” which means upon infor­ma­tion and belief, the defen­dant will like­ly not be exe­cut­ed on the sched­uled exe­cu­tion date. This could be for a num­ber of rea­sons, includ­ing the fact that the date was with­drawn or resched­uled , the indi­vid­ual died in prison before their exe­cu­tion date, or the exe­cu­tion was stayed.