Ramirez v. Collier (21-5592)

argument 21-5592

Ramirez v. Collier

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 37m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What was Texas’s historical policy on spiritual advisors in the execution chamber?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next today in case twenty one fifty five ninety two, Ramirez versus Collier. Mr Kretzer?

Jeffrey M. Kretzer 0:11

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Across Texas's five hundred and seventy two executions spanning four decades, the state's policy was to allow a spiritual advisor to be present in the execution chamber, to lay hands on a condemned inmate, and to audibly pray. In two thousand nineteen, that longstanding practice changed suddenly when the state chose to forbid any religious advisor from the execution chamber. Ramirez and other inmates fought to preserve the religious exercise rights to spiritual advisor presence, and while these challenges proceeded, the state withdrew Ramirez's 2020 execution date in exchange for withdrawal of his Section 1983 petition. Six months later, the state reset Ramirez's execution, followed two months after that by a reversion to allowing in chamber spiritual advisor presence.

Jeffrey M. Kretzer 1:01

The State then waited to reveal, months more, to reveal first a ban on touch, only later it banned the writ spoken word. Either the State merely delayed revealing these new restrictions, or, worse, added them piecemeal while Ramirez sought redress through the grievance system. Either way, the state's actions rendered that system unavailable under the PLRA. The State now argues that Ramirez Amirez's resort to litigation came somehow far too late, but also six days too early. TDCJ's own history and practices, as well as the current approaches of the federal government and states like Alabama, prove that Texas's restrictions on touch and prayer are not the least restrictive means of furthering its proffered execution interests.

Jeffrey M. Kretzer 1:46

Mr. Amira should prevail as a matter of law under our looph. If the court determines, however, that the state should be allowed another chance to attempt to meet its burden, this court should remand for an evidentiary hearing in which both sides may develop the record. I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:02

Uh counsel, has uh Mr M uh Ramirez always uh requested that uh hands be laid on him?

Jeffrey M. Kretzer 2:10

I The answer to your question, Mrs. Thomas, is that is Mr. Renewers' religious belief. There is a sentence in the petition I filed in the year two thousand and twenty, which turned out in light of facts ultimately learned by me to have been incorrect. That was only on file for two days before the State asked me to dismiss it without prejudice. When the matter was refiled and I had an affidavit from Pastor Moore, it was reflected appropriately. It would have been amended at the time. Well I

Clarence Thomas 2:35

mean that's an affidavit from Pastor Moore. We're talking about Mr Ramirez. Now Um if y we think that uh Mr Ramirez has changed his uh requests on a number of times and uh has filed uh last minute complaints that uh as uh and that is an and and if we assume that that's uh some indication of gaming the system, what should we do with that uh with respect to assessing the sincerity of his beliefs?

Jeffrey M. Kretzer 3:10

I think Justice Thomas you can s assess the sincerity of Mr. Ramirez's belief by looking at the best evidence that there is in the record, which is a seriatum, one handwritten signed grievance after another, repeatedly requesting the same thing.

Clarence Thomas 3:31

It's evidence that obviously they don't obviously don't want to be executed. Uh and uh d they and in some instances they're gaming the system. I guess my question is can one's uh repeated filing of complaints, particularly at the last minute, not only be seen as evidence of gaming of the system, but also of the sincerity of religious beliefs.

Jeffrey M. Kretzer 4:00

Well, Mr. Thomas, I can certainly see how a hypothetical inmate perhaps filing a last minute such request might so be construed. I can only speak as Mr. Ramirez's attorney and I do not play games. There is no dilatory tactics in this case. When the State set the execution date in the year 2020, I filed the 1983 lawsuit, and the State asked me to dismiss it without prejudice. When the State filed again it got a new Death Warrant in the year 2020. It was only Mr. Ramirez immediately filed grievances. There was no waiting there.