Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in vacating the injunction requiring TDCJ to publish a clear policy on religious expression in the execution chamber

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2021, Petitioner Stephen Barbee filed this lawsuit against the relevant directors of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). He has alleged that TDCJ refused to allow his spiritual advisor to audibly pray and hold his hand while in the execution chamber, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The district court stayed an earlier execution and stayed the case pending this Court’s resolution of Ramirez v. Collier, 142 S. Ct. 1264 (2022). On March 24, 2022, this Court decided Ramirez, ordering TDCJ to allow the inmate’s spiritual advisor to be allowed to pray and lay hands on him during the execution. Recognizing that case-by-case dispositions of religious rights claims may result in continued “last-minute litigation.” the Court provided the following guidance: [T]imely resolution of such claims could be facilitated if State were to adopt policies anticipating and addressing issues likely to arise. Doing so would assist both prison officials responsible for carrying out executions and prisoners preparing to confront the end of life according to their religious beliefs...If States adopt clear rules in advance, it should be the rare case that requires last-minute resort to the federal courts. If such cases do arise, and a court determines that relief is appropriate under the RLUIPA, the proper remedy is an injunction ordering the accommodation, not a stay of execution. This approach balances the State’s interest in carrying out capital sentences without delay and the prisoner’s interest in religious exercise. (Cd. at 1283). In Petitioner’s case, on May 22, 2022, Director Lumpkin signed an affidavit promising Barbee that he could have his spiritual advisor audibly pray and touch him on a lower extremity. On August 17, 2022, Lumpkin signed another affidavit, this one promising Barbee that his spiritual advisor could hold his hand in the execution chamber. The district court, in reviewing the history of this type of litigation across several cases, found that Texas has not adopted a policy after Ramirez -i and observed that “TDCJ has apparently left the question of what a spiritual advisor may do to the discretion of prison officials, including the TDCJ Director.” (App.014). In light of these findings, the district court granted Barbee a preliminary injunction stating that TDCJ can proceed with Barbee’s execution on November 16, 2022 “only after it publishes a clear policy” addressing how it will protect the religious rights of prisoners in the execution chamber. (App.018). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the injunction as overbroad because an order requiring a change in TDCJ policy would benefit not only Barbee but also other death row inmates. This gives rise to the following questions: 1. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in vacating as an abuse of discretion the injunction requiring TDCJ to publish a clear policy where the district court found that, despite this Court’s guidance in Ramirez, TDCJ “has not responded by enacting any formal policy guaranteeing religious expression in the execution chamber.” (App.014). 2. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in vacating the injunction granted below on the ground that “it is improper under the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act]...to go beyond relief for Barbee himself (App.006) although the district court had determined the injunction’s scope was necessary to give Barbee the relief to which he was entitled?