## Facts

- Arkansas enacted the Method of Execution Act of 2009 (MEA), Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-617, providing for execution by intravenous lethal injection.
- The MEA authorized the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) to select the chemicals used, including the number, quantity, and sequence, with minimal legislative standards.
- Death-row inmate Jack Harold Jones sued Ray Hobbs (ADC Director) and the ADC, alleging the MEA violated the Arkansas Constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine by delegating core legislative choices to an executive agency.
- Jones sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent execution under the MEA; other death-row inmates joined and asserted related challenges.
- The inmates also challenged the use of certain non-FDA-approved sodium thiopental acquired from an overseas supplier, asserting constitutional violations and seeking an injunction barring use of those drugs.
- During the litigation, the ADC disposed of the foreign-sourced sodium thiopental and represented it could not obtain additional supplies from that source.

## Issues

1. Whether Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-617 violates the Arkansas Constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine by delegating to the ADC, without sufficient standards, authority to determine the chemicals and procedures used in executions.
2. Whether claims challenging the use of foreign-sourced, non-FDA-approved sodium thiopental were moot after the ADC disposed of the drugs and asserted it could not obtain more.
3. Whether the proper remedy was partial severance and injunctive relief, or invalidation of the statute in full and vacatur of drug-specific injunctions.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed that the MEA was unconstitutional because it granted the ADC “unfettered discretion” over key execution-policy choices.
- The court affirmed the mootness ruling as to challenges tied to the disposed foreign-sourced sodium thiopental.
- The court reversed the circuit court’s attempt to strike only portions of the MEA, holding the statute was unconstitutional in its entirety.
- The court reversed injunctive relief restricting use of sodium thiopental obtained in violation of law, concluding such orders were improper once the MEA was invalidated and the drug-source claims were moot.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Arkansas Constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine, the legislature may not delegate essential policy decisions to an executive agency without meaningful standards guiding the agency’s discretion.
- A statute that leaves core choices about the method of execution—such as which chemicals to use and their dosage and sequence—to an agency with minimal constraints constitutes an unconstitutional delegation.
- Courts will not cure an unconstitutional delegation by judicially rewriting the statute through partial severance when the defect permeates the statutory scheme.
- Claims for injunctive or declaratory relief become moot when the challenged conduct cannot reasonably recur due to the defendant’s disposal of the challenged items and inability to obtain them.

## Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that Arkansas’s lethal-injection statute unconstitutionally delegated fundamental execution-policy decisions to the ADC without adequate legislative standards, required invalidation of the statute as a whole, and vacated drug-specific injunctions after concluding related challenges were moot.


Hobbs v. Jones, 412 S.W.3d 844 (Ark. 2012)