Whether the State's policy of denying a religious adviser to a condemned prisoner during execution violates RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Prior to March 28, 2019, Texas allowed inmates undergoing execution to have a State-employed chaplain (all of whom were Christian or Muslim) present in the execution chamber. Patrick Murphy alleged that this policy discriminated against Buddhist inmates like him. On March 28, 2019, this Court stayed Murphy’s execution to consider his claim. Murphy v. Collier, 139 S. Ct. 1475, 1475 (2019). On April 2, 2019, Texas changed its policy. Under the new policy, Texas allows neither State-employed chaplains nor any other religious advisers to be present in the execution room. Petitioner, a Catholic, timely challenged the new policy as violating the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc—2000cc-5 (2000). The district court found that Petitioner was likely to succeed on the merits, denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and granted Petitioner’s motion for a stay. The Fifth Circuit granted Defendants’ motion to vacate the stay. This Court should grant this Petition, stay the execution, vacate the decision below, and remand to the district court to consider the merits of Petitioner’s claims. The questions presented are: 1. Under the RLUIPA, does the State’s decision to deprive Mr. Gutierrez of the opportunity to be accompanied during his execution by a religious adviser employed by the prison substantially burden the exercise of his religion, so as to require the State to justify the deprivation as the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest? 2. For purposes of the Free Exercise Clause, does the State’s blanket policy of denying all prisoners the aid of a religious adviser at the time of the execution— adopted for the acknowledged purpose of avoiding the obligation to allow such a minister to a Buddhist prisoner—burden Mr. Gutierrez’s exercise of religion without legitimate justification? ii