## Facts

- California authorized execution by lethal injection or lethal gas, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was responsible for developing execution procedures.
- CDCR historically used an internal lethal-injection protocol rather than formally adopted regulations; after prior litigation, CDCR initiated Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking to adopt lethal-injection regulations.
- CDCR issued a notice of proposed regulatory action and submitted draft regulations and an Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
- The rulemaking generated extensive public participation, including tens of thousands of written comments and a public hearing with over 100 speakers.
- OAL approved the regulations and they became effective.
- A condemned inmate challenged the regulations, alleging CDCR failed to substantially comply with APA procedures, including inadequate discussion of alternatives (notably a one-drug protocol), delayed availability and defects in the rulemaking file, and insufficient summary and responses to public comments.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the inmate on the APA claim and permanently enjoined executions by lethal injection until valid APA-compliant regulations were adopted; CDCR appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether CDCR’s lethal-injection regulations substantially complied with the procedural requirements of the California APA and were therefore valid.
2. Whether CDCR adequately disclosed and maintained the rulemaking file and adequately explained its consideration and rejection of feasible alternatives.
3. Whether CDCR sufficiently summarized and responded in writing to relevant public comments.
4. Whether a permanent injunction barring lethal-injection executions pending valid regulations was an appropriate remedy for APA noncompliance.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment invalidating the lethal-injection regulations for failure to substantially comply with the APA.
- The court held CDCR’s treatment of alternatives was inadequate, including a failure to provide a reasoned explanation for rejecting a one-drug protocol urged during rulemaking.
- The court held defects in the rulemaking file, including delayed public availability and inclusion of irrelevant material, impaired meaningful notice and participation.
- The court held CDCR did not adequately summarize and respond to numerous distinct public comments as required by the APA.
- The court upheld the injunction prohibiting executions by lethal injection unless and until CDCR promulgated valid regulations in compliance with the APA.

## Legal Principles

- Under the California APA, a regulation is invalid if the agency fails to substantially comply with required procedures; substantial compliance requires fulfillment of the APA’s core purposes of informed public participation and reasoned administrative explanation.
- Agencies must maintain and timely make available a complete rulemaking file reflecting the information on which the regulation is based.
- An ISOR must adequately explain the rationale for regulatory choices and address feasible alternatives that could reduce adverse impacts.
- Agencies must provide written summaries of relevant objections or recommendations and explain responsive changes or the reasons for making no change.
- When APA violations undermine meaningful participation and reasoned decisionmaking, injunctive relief may be used to prevent implementation of invalid regulations until lawful rulemaking occurs.

## Conclusion

The court held CDCR’s lethal-injection regulations were procedurally invalid because cumulative APA defects—especially inadequate discussion of alternatives, rulemaking-file deficiencies, and insufficient responses to public comments—prevented meaningful participation and reasoned explanation, justifying an injunction barring lethal-injection executions until valid regulations are adopted.


Sims v. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)