Whoa! Big death penalty news —>
There is no need, and it runs counter to any rational definition of "justice," for @TheJusticeDept to oppose efforts to litigate constitutional claims against their executions before putting people to death. And yet, DOJ has done so here. 
DOJ: "While there is no question that an execution is final ... it is not clear that constitutes irreparable harm in [this] context ...." scribd.com/document/43613…
“Hi, I’d like to use the power of the federal government to kill some people, but I’d like to do so before you have time to consider their argument that the way I plan to kill them is unconstitutional.” - AG Bill Barr and @TheJusticeDept to a federal court
The federal gov't does nothing to act on death sentences for seven years, including the first 2.5 years of the Trump administration, then implements a policy change, then "indicate[s]" it won't hold off on killing people while litigating that new change. From tonight's opinion:
I go back to my professional responsibility course when I read that, and I wonder how we have allowed a jurisprudence to develop that considers such behavior legal OR ethical.
Here's the substantive discussion of the reason for the stay, as detailed in @joshgerstein's story, which basically boils down to "federal law says feds have to use the state of conviction's 'manner' of execution, but DOJ tried to do one uniform policy, so, no go."
Also, unlike DOJ, Judge Chutkan understands that an execution creates irreparable harm.
Finally, and importantly, Judge Chutkan talks about how it is not just those who would be executed who would be harmed by "short-circuiting" litigation: The public also would suffer harm.
