‘Dignity’ is a poor excuse for blocking press access to state executions

Press Access to Executions: A Dignity Argument Under Scrutiny

Dignity is a poor excuse for blocking - Indiana’s legal framework restricts attendance at executions to a select group of individuals, including the prison warden, immediate family members of the victim, up to five relatives or friends of the condemned, the prison physician, and the chaplain. This policy effectively bars the press from witnessing the state’s use of the death penalty, unless an inmate explicitly invites a reporter to join the five-person limit. The ruling, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a split decision on June 5, upheld the state’s right to limit media presence during executions, despite claims of constitutional violations.

The Fight for Press Freedom

Last year, a coalition of news organizations filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that Indiana’s prohibition on press access violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The plaintiffs contended that executions have long been public events, and denying media coverage undermines the transparency essential to democratic accountability. However, the Seventh Circuit majority disagreed, asserting that the state’s restrictions are justified by the need to preserve the dignity of the executed.

"Last December, members of the press were prohibited from attending Indiana’s lethal injection of death row inmate Joseph Corcoran. … It was the first time the state had killed a prisoner in 15 years, and the first time it used a single drug — pentobarbital — to carry out an execution." — Reporters Committee for a Free Press

While the ruling favored Indiana, it sparked debate over the role of the press in documenting state-sanctioned executions. Critics pointed out that the state’s approach is an outlier compared to other death penalty states, which typically allow media coverage but limit the number of reporters or the portions of the execution they can observe. Wyoming, which hasn’t executed anyone since 1992, is the only other state that entirely excludes the press from executions.

The Dignity Defense: A Flawed Premise

At the heart of Indiana’s argument is the claim that keeping the press at bay safeguards the dignity of the person being executed. The court’s majority echoed this, stating that uninvited observers might “offend the dignity of their final moments.” However, this reasoning has been challenged as inconsistent with the historical role of the press in witnessing executions.

For decades, executions have been public spectacles, with reporters present to chronicle the process. Even as the practice moved indoors, the media remained a consistent presence, except in Indiana and Wyoming. The state’s reliance on the “dignity” rationale seems to overlook the fact that the press has often been a silent guardian of public accountability, ensuring that the execution process is transparent and free from bias.

A Case for Independent Scrutiny

Justice Candace Jackson-Akimumi, in her dissent, highlighted the importance of impartial observers in maintaining the integrity of the execution process. She argued that press access is not contingent on the preferences of the government or the defendant, but rather on the public’s right to know. “Direct access by impartial individuals is necessary to ensure that accurate, neutral accounts of the execution reach the public,” she wrote.

Jackson-Akimumi also emphasized that public observation serves as a check on governmental actions, encouraging officials to uphold standards of decency. “Public access … helps incentivize government officials to adhere to standards of decency and reveal any issues that occurred during an execution,” she added. This perspective underscores the broader implications of the ruling, which could set a precedent for limiting press freedom in other states.

Historical Context and Constitutional Precedents

The Seventh Circuit’s decision drew on historical claims, asserting that executions have not been “historically open to the press and general public” in many parts of the country for over a century. While it’s true that public executions have declined, the court overlooked the continued presence of the media in most states. For instance, in 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the value of press witnesses in ensuring transparency, a view echoed by Jackson-Akimumi in her dissent.

Indiana’s law, which allows only a limited number of attendees, has created a scenario where the press must rely on the goodwill of the condemned to gain access. This was evident in the case of Joseph Corcoran, where a single reporter was permitted to witness the execution after being specifically invited by the inmate. Since then, two more executions have taken place: Benjamin Ritchie in May 2025 and Roy Lee Ward in October 2025. In both instances, no journalists were present to document the event.

Implications for the First Amendment

Indiana’s defense hinges on the idea that the press is treated no differently than the public. The state argues that even though reporters are excluded, they remain free to publish their accounts as long as they have access. However, this logic fails to account for the inherent differences between the press and ordinary spectators. While the public can attend in large numbers, the press must often navigate additional barriers to ensure their presence.

The majority’s emphasis on “dignity” as a justification for excluding the press raises questions about the balance between state interests and First Amendment rights. If the state seeks to protect the dignity of the executed, why does it permit only a small group of individuals to witness the event? The court’s decision risks creating a two-tiered system where the press is granted access only when it aligns with the condemned’s preferences, undermining the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

A Path to Supreme Court Review

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling has positioned Indiana’s policy as a potential candidate for Supreme Court review. By framing the issue as a matter of dignity, the court has opened the door for broader discussions about the role of the press in state executions. If the Supreme Court were to take up the case, it could ultimately determine whether the First Amendment requires unfettered media access to executions, regardless of the state’s preferences.

As the debate continues, the issue of press access remains a focal point for civil liberties advocates. The ruling in Indiana not only highlights the state’s unique approach to executions but also challenges the constitutional principles that underpin public accountability. The press, as a vital component of democratic discourse, plays a crucial role in ensuring that executions are carried out transparently and in accordance with public standards. The Seventh Circuit’s embrace of the dignity argument may serve as a stepping stone for the Supreme Court to weigh in on this fundamental question.

In the end, the case underscores a tension between the state’s desire to control the narrative of executions and the public’s right to observe them. By limiting press access, Indiana may be ensuring a dignified atmosphere for the condemned, but at the cost of a more inclusive and transparent process. The decision leaves room for further legal challenges, as the fight for press freedom in state executions continues to evolve.