In the November 2021 episode of Discussions with DPIC, Daniel Chen, coun­sel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, speaks with DPIC Executive Director Robert Dunham about the Supreme Court case Ramirez v. Collier and death-row pris­on­ers’ rights to reli­gious free­dom. John Ramirez has chal­lenged Texas’ restric­tions on audi­ble prayer and phys­i­cal touch by his spir­i­tu­al advi­sor dur­ing his exe­cu­tion. Allowing such pas­toral com­fort in the exe­cu­tion cham­ber, Chen says, is about fun­da­men­tal human dignity.”

Interviewed a week before the Supreme Court oral argu­ment in Ramirez, Chen describes the Becket Fund’s involve­ment in that case and oth­ers involv­ing the free exer­cise of reli­gion in the exe­cu­tion cham­ber. Tracing the his­to­ry of audi­ble prayer and cler­gy touch dur­ing exe­cu­tions, Chen says Texas’ pol­i­cy is out of step with his­tor­i­cal prac­tices, includ­ing its own pre-2019 regulations. 

A key issue in Ramirez, Chen says, is whether Texas vio­lat­ed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA) by pro­hibit­ing Ramirez’s pas­tor from pray­ing audi­bly and touch­ing him in the exe­cu­tion cham­ber. Because Texas has con­ced­ed that this con­sti­tutes a sub­stan­tial bur­den on Ramirez’s exer­cise of reli­gion, the state has the bur­den of show­ing that the pro­hi­bi­tion is the least restric­tive means of advanc­ing a com­pelling state interest. 

[P]rison secu­ri­ty inter­ests are undoubt­ed­ly very, very impor­tant,” Chen says, but if there’s a less restric­tive way to do it, Texas must do it.” He explains that the his­tor­i­cal prac­tices from 16th cen­tu­ry England and colo­nial America through Texas’s own exe­cu­tions in the mod­ern era under­mine the state’s asser­tion that there are no less restric­tive means of bur­den­ing Ramirez’s rights. if you’ve been able to do it in the past, you have to be able to come up with some jus­ti­fi­able rea­son for why you’re depart­ing from that. And Texas here, I believe, has­n’t done that,” Chen says.

Texas’s posi­tion, Chen argues in fur­ther under­mined by the fact that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment per­mit­ted spir­i­tu­al advi­sors to engage in audi­ble prayer dur­ing its 2021 – 2021 exe­cu­tions and Alabama per­mit­ted Willie B. Smith’s pas­tor to anoint him with oil, pray out loud, and touch him in an October 2021 exe­cu­tion, all without incident. 

Chen and Dunham con­clude their dis­cus­sion explor­ing the Becket Fund’s belief that the right to reli­gious lib­er­ty is a fun­da­men­tal human. The gov­ern­ment must pro­tect that right, Chen says, even — and per­haps espe­cial­ly — for peo­ple who might be dif­fer­ent from us, who might have dif­fer­ent life cir­cum­stances,” includ­ing those on death row.