UPDATE on DOJ's attempt to execute people while challenges to DOJ's execution protocol are pending. The quick update: The DC Circuit denied DOJ's request for a stay pending appeal (which would allow executions to proceed), so now DOJ is asking #SCOTUS for a stay. Background:
Here's the DC Circuit's denial, which was per curiam (meaning, unsigned and "by the court"). There were no written or noted dissents. 
I do think it's notable that, at the least, either Judge Griffith or Judge Rao voted against DOJ's request here at the DC Circuit — and quite possibly all three judges (including Judge Rogers) did. And, no one felt compelled to write a dissent, even if one voted for the stay.
In normal times, one would think that might lead @TheJusticeDept to take a minute and question whether this is the best argument and worth pushing to SCOTUS.
This is not normal times, and this is not a normal DOJ. So, within hours, the SCOTUS stay request was filed.
This is not normal times, and this is not a normal DOJ. So, within hours, the SCOTUS stay request was filed.
And, despite the district court's ruling and the DC Circuit's refusal to set that aside — keep in mind, Clinton, W, Obama, and Trump judges have now seen this case — DOJ filed a brief at SCOTUS calling the district court ruling "meritless."
That would be a bit over-the-top in any case, but let's please not lose sight the DOJ is doing this in *this* case — in order to execute people before they can litigate their challenge to DOJ's new execution protocol.
Note: The #SCOTUS federal death execution stay application from DOJ is Docket No. 19A615. supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?Fi…
Update: A handful of death penalty states (14) requested to file an amici brief in DOJ's federal execution stay application, seeking to support DOJ as states who know about executions. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/1…
The states' brief is (remarkably?) even weaker than DOJ's stay application. The only thing that appears to be even marginally relevant to the issues is the final sentence of the argument summary.
Even more remarkably, the states' briefing in that section of the body of the argument raises the question: If secrecy is essential to the functioning of the death penalty, is it a proper punishment for the state to be inflicting?
Having worked with @csmcdaniel and @TasneemN for several years as Chris, primarily, charted a path of coverage on execution drug supply stories, there is no doubt in my mind that the secrecy exists because no one wants to be held accountable for a state killing people.
The lawyers for Arizona Attorney @GeneralBrnovich write that "suppliers have succumbed to economic pressure and harassment from anti-death penalty activists" — but all that means in reality is Republicans only like the free market when they're able to use it to their benefit.
People don't want to be associated with states killing people. So, big pharma has stopped. Little pharma has stopped. Here's what states are left with:
1. buzzfeednews.com/article/chrism…
2. buzzfeednews.com/article/chrism…
3. buzzfeednews.com/article/chrism…
1. buzzfeednews.com/article/chrism…
2. buzzfeednews.com/article/chrism…
3. buzzfeednews.com/article/chrism…
No wonder states want to keep it a secret.
