Whether the separation of powers and due process are violated when a state executive officer, who also holds exclusive clemency power, is authorized to set execution dates that were previously set by judicial order

No question identified. : 5. Whether the Eleventh Circuit's summary denial of a stay of execution, relying solely on Barwick v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 84 F.4th 1230 (11th Cir. 2023), without analysis of the four Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), factors, conflicts with decisions of other circuits and this Court’s precedents requiring a reasoned balancing of those factors before denying relief in capital cases. Il. JURISDICTION The Eleventh Circuit denied a stay of execution and dismissed the appeal on October 20, 2025, in Boyd v. Ivey, No. 25-13573. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Ul. INTRODUCTION This case concerns a structural violation of the Constitution. In 2023, the Alabama Supreme Court amended Rule 8(d)(1) of its Appellate Rules to authorize the Governor—an executive officer who also holds the exclusive clemency power—to set execution dates. That act displaced a judicial function long reserved to the courts under Ala. Code § 15-18-82(a), which provides that “the court shall ... set the date of execution.” The Governor subsequently fixed Anthony Boyd's execution date for October 23, 2025. No court has ever reviewed that procedure for constitutionality. Boyd's life is now at stake under an executive act that the Alabama Constitution forbids. IV.