Media Coalition Presses for Access to Indiana Executions

On February 18, 2026, a three-judge pan­el of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral argu­ments in a case seek­ing to open exe­cu­tions in Indiana to press wit­ness­es. The First Amendment chal­lenge to Indiana’s absolute ban was ini­ti­at­ed a year ago by a broad coali­tion of media out­lets seek­ing, at that time, to wit­ness the exe­cu­tion of Benjamin Ritchie. The coali­tion was unsuc­cess­ful in that endeav­or; Mr. Ritchie’s May 20, 2025, exe­cu­tion would be lat­er described by non-media wit­ness­es as​“vio­lent” and ​“botched.” Oral argu­ments focused on the broad­er chal­lenge to press restric­tions found in Indiana law and in its exe­cu­tion pro­to­col. The media coali­tion is com­prised of local and nation­al media groups, includ­ing The Associated Press, Indiana Capital Chronicle, and Gannett and is rep­re­sent­ed by attor­neys from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The suit argues ​“Indiana’s statu­to­ry pro­hi­bi­tion on pro­vid­ing access to news reporters at its exe­cu­tions has lim­it­ed the public’s under­stand­ing of these pro­ceed­ings.” Indiana statute details who may attend exe­cu­tions, unique­ly bar­ring press wit­ness­es unless the con­demned indi­vid­u­al­ly selects them as one of their five atten­dees. During oral argu­ments, attor­ney for the media coali­tion, Lin Weeks said, ​“the con­sti­tu­tion lim­its when the gov­ern­ment can close cer­tain pro­ceed­ings” as it pro­tects ​“the informed dis­cus­sion of gov­ern­men­tal affairs.” The press, Ms. Weeks remind­ed the court, serves ​“as the pub­lic’s eyes and ears.” 

Leading up to the December 18, 2024, exe­cu­tion of Joseph Corcoran in Indiana, the first in the state in 15 years, the only jour­nal­ist able to attend was Casey Smith, who Mr. Corcoran des­ig­nat­ed and invit­ed as a friend. The com­plaint notes Ms. Smith’s report­ing ​“filled in key gaps” in the government’s state­ments about Corcoran’s exe­cu­tion pro­ceed­ing.” Ms. Smith report­ed wit­ness­es were not able to see the admin­is­tra­tion of drugs, hear any­thing (includ­ing the con­demned man’s last words and pos­si­ble strug­gles), or observe the offi­cial pro­nounce­ment of death. The com­plaint reminds that Mr. Corcoran’s exe­cu­tion was also the first time Indiana used a one-drug pen­to­bar­bi­tal lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dure. Pentobarbital is a fast-act­ing bar­bi­tu­rate, not approved by the FDA and with­drawn by the U.S. Department of Justice for use in fed­er­al exe­cu­tions at the end of President Biden’s administration.

Indiana’s restric­tions on the press are an out­lier in the cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment space. Indiana is one of two states to explic­it­ly ban the press entire­ly from exe­cu­tions. Wyoming, which has a sim­i­lar ban, has not car­ried out an exe­cu­tion since 1992 and cur­rent­ly has no indi­vid­u­als on death row. A DPI review of exe­cu­tion statutes and pro­to­cols found that among the states that allow for press access to exe­cu­tions, at least ten (Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia, and North Carolina) even include pro­vi­sions about how to select press rep­re­sen­ta­tives. The United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, hous­es the fed­er­al exe­cu­tion cham­ber, and the com­plaint reminds that up to ​“ten rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the press” are per­mit­ted to view executions there. 

The Indiana oral argu­ments come on the heels of a January 22, 2026, judge­ment in neigh­bor­ing Tennessee, where Chancellor I’Ashea L. Myles of the Davidson County Chancery Court ordered expand­ed press access to that state’s exe­cu­tion pro­ceed­ings, find­ing the pre­vi­ous restric­tions like­ly viola­tive of state law and the First Amendment. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press also rep­re­sent­ed the plain­tiffs in that lawsuit. 

A rul­ing from the Seventh Circuit Court in the Indiana case is pending.