News outlets ask Seventh Circuit for access to observe Indiana executions

(CN) — An Indiana law that does not give media access to witness state executions was challenged by news groups during oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit on Wednesday.

The Associated Press and other news groups sued Indiana in 2025, challenging its prohibition on media from being present and witnessing state executions. The fight over access is renewed after a 15-year break in state executions, as Indiana has executed three people since 2024 and currently has five inmates on death row.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim Indiana’s prohibition of access violates First Amendment rights and has limited the public’s understanding of previous executions.

The challenged law only allows limited groups to be present during state executions, including the warden, a warden’s designee, a prison physician, another physician, the convicted person’s spiritual adviser, the prison chaplain, up to five family members or friends of the convicted person and up to eight attendees in support of the victim.

Additionally, the law provides a designated area for the press but does not allow them to witness the executions directly.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brookman, a Joe Biden appointee, ruled against the plaintiffs and rejected their request for an injunction, finding that the press is not treated unfairly by the state law.

“At bottom, Indiana law treats members of the press the same as members of the public at large. They are not being singled out for disparate treatment, even though Indiana law permits physicians and spiritual advisors to attend executions,” wrote Brookman.

During Wednesday’s oral arguments, most of the questioning and arguments centered on whether the press should be granted special rights to places where the public is not generally given access.

“To protect the informed discussion of governmental affairs, the constitution limits when the government can close certain proceedings,” said attorney Lin Weeks, who represents the plaintiffs. “Second, the press serves the public by checking the government by facilitating discourse and by serving as the public’s eyes and ears.”

Weeks, who works for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argued laws that restrict these functions should be treated with a “healthy dose of skepticism.”

The lawsuit highlights one such case that could have benefited from the presence of media, which is the 1985 Indiana execution of William Vandiver, who was convicted of murdering his father-in-law and whose execution required multiple applications of electricity before being pronounced dead.

At the time, there were murky public reports on what happened, with the Vandiver’s trial attorney, Herbert Shaps, calling the proceeding “outrageous” and spokesperson for the jail Nancy Broglin saying the execution “did not go according to plan.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder, a Donald Trump appointee, asked Weeks if he was seeking an expansion of Supreme Court precedent regarding media access.

“You are asking for an extension of law there, not kind of an application of law as it currently stands,” Scudder said. “Is that a fair reaction?”

Weeks responded by saying he believes the Supreme Court’s rulings on similar cases are “that there is no guarantee of a special right of access for the press.”

Instead, Weeks suggested a balancing test occurs when the state wants to restrict access to certain government proceedings.

Attorney Megan Michelle Smith, arguing on behalf of the state, claimed the plaintiffs were just looking for a leg up in reporting and not public access concerns.

“Despite framing their claim as one for public access, all media plaintiffs seek is press-only access to executions in Indiana,” Smith said. “They want access to the Indiana state prison, to gather information to report on Indiana executions.”

Smith went on to say that regardless of how the claim is presented, the press is not “entitled to access beyond that afforded to the general public.”

Smith also argued that, over time, standards of decency evolved from executions being public spectacles to being “private and less barbaric, less of a spectacle."

Both Scudder and U.S. Circuit Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, a Biden appointee, asked Smith about the historical role of access to executions and the evolving role of the press.

Smith responded by saying the state law does not prevent the press from conducting interviews and reporting on the executions.

“What they cannot do is be their own primary source of the information,” said Smith. “There is no First Amendment right for the press to do so.”

Plaintiffs are fighting for access to state executions, not executions carried out by the federal government at Terre Haute, Indiana’s federal penitentiary, which has traditionally allowed some members of the press to attend executions.

The other plaintiffs in the case include States Newsroom, Gannett Co., Circle City Broadcasting and Tegna Inc.

U.S. Circuit Judge Doris Pryor, a Biden appointee, rounded out the panel. The court did not reveal a timeline for its ruling.