NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Nine men on Tennessee’s death row have filed a lawsuit against the state, challenging its lethal injection protocol as unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Tennessee constitutions. The civil rights action was filed in Davidson County Chancery Court against Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) Commissioner Frank Strada and Riverbend Maximum Security Institution Warden Kenneth Nelsen.
The lawsuit alleges that the state’s new lethal injection protocol, introduced in January 2025, is “too obviously untenable to stand.” The primary concern raised by the inmates is the use of pentobarbital, a drug they claim has been shown to “pose a high risk of a torturous death,” particularly if improperly handled or stored. They argue that TDOC has a history of recklessness and noncompliance, which would make it difficult for employees to safely and effectively administer the drug.
Concerns Over Lethal Injection Protocol
In April 2022, significant issues regarding lethal injection procedures came to light, prompting Governor Bill Lee to halt all executions in the state for over two years. Despite these concerns, Tennessee chose to continue using pentobarbital in its revised execution protocol, even after the U.S. Department of Justice abandoned its use due to concerns about “unnecessary pain and suffering.”
The lawsuit points to several factors that highlight the risks associated with the use of pentobarbital. These include:
- Storage and Handling Issues: The plaintiffs argue that proper storage and handling of pentobarbital is critical to ensuring humane administration, yet there is little oversight to guarantee compliance.
- Lack of Qualified Personnel: The lawsuit contends that TDOC lacks minimum competency requirements for execution personnel. There is no prohibition against using suppliers with histories of safety violations or fraud, which raises serious concerns about the reliability of the drug’s administration.
- Drug Scarcity and Secrecy: The inmates claim that the scarcity of pentobarbital and the secrecy surrounding the state’s supply chain further indicate constitutional violations. They argue that the lack of transparency makes it difficult to ensure the drug is safe and effective for use in executions.
Restrictions on Inmates Before Execution
Beyond concerns regarding the lethal injection protocol, the lawsuit also challenges the restrictions imposed on death row inmates in the hours leading up to their execution. The plaintiffs argue that the TDOC has implemented “draconian restrictions” on communication with family and friends during the final 12 hours before an execution, limiting their ability to say goodbye. They claim that these restrictions serve “little, if any, purpose” and contribute to unnecessary emotional distress.
Furthermore, the lawsuit raises concerns about the lack of access to legal counsel during critical moments of the execution process. The plaintiffs request the right to have their attorneys present when they are strapped to the gurney and their IVs are inserted, arguing that such oversight is essential to ensuring their constitutional rights are upheld.
Legal Demands and Next Steps
The inmates are asking the court to:
- Declare the use of pentobarbital unconstitutional as an execution method due to the risk of excessive pain and suffering.
- Implement safeguards to address inadequacies in the 2025 lethal injection protocol, including requirements for qualified personnel and transparency in drug sourcing.
- Grant legal counsel access during the execution process, particularly at the time of IV insertion.
- Prohibit the use of curtains and severed audio-visual connections that conceal the death check, arguing that such measures violate constitutional rights by preventing external oversight.
As this lawsuit progresses, it is expected to spark renewed debate over the death penalty and execution methods in Tennessee. Legal experts anticipate a lengthy battle, with potential implications for capital punishment policies nationwide.
For now, the fate of Tennessee’s execution protocol remains uncertain, as the state prepares to defend its revised procedures in court.
Disclaimer – Our editorial team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and eliminate any potential misinformation. We are dedicated to upholding the highest standards of integrity in our content.