In a groundbreaking legal move, ten death row inmates in Arkansas have initiated a lawsuit challenging the state's latest execution law, Act 302, which they claim grants overly broad discretion to correctional authorities on choosing execution methods without clear standards. This lawsuit, filed on August 5 in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, contends that the recent legislative changes violate the Arkansas Constitution's separation of powers, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions about whether inmates will face death by lethal injection or nitrogen hypoxia.

The controversy stems from Act 302's removal of specific execution methods from the statute, presenting a stark departure from the previous law which explicitly stated lethal injection as the mode of execution. The new statute merely specifies that execution shall be carried out either by lethal injection or nitrogen gas, without providing guidelines or criteria for selecting between these methods. This vagueness, the plaintiffs argue, could lead to decisions influenced by personal biases or discriminatory factors, including the race of the inmate or their victim.

This legal battle is particularly significant as it leverages recent Supreme Court doctrines against nondelegation, a principle that prevents Congress from transferring its legislative powers to other entities without clear guidelines. The lawsuit echoes concerns highlighted by Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasizing that the delegation of such critical decisions must be bounded by clear standards and policies to prevent arbitrary or capricious practices.

The case also highlights deeper issues with the transparency and morality of execution methods, arguing that choices about how to carry out death penalties are not merely administrative or technical decisions but are instead profound moral choices that should be made by the legislature and informed by public opinion and constitutional norms.

Moreover, the lawsuit challenges the retroactive application of new execution methods to inmates sentenced under the old law, asserting violations of due process protections and prohibitions on ex post facto laws under the Arkansas Constitution.

This legal action does not only contest the constitutionality of the execution methods per se but insists on the right of individuals sentenced to death to know in advance the method by which they will be executed, emphasizing the psychological and ethical implications of such knowledge.

The outcome of this case could set a significant legal precedent affecting not only the future of capital punishment in Arkansas, which has not seen an execution since 2017 nor a new death sentence since 2018, but also influencing broader national policies regarding the administration of the death penalty.

As the legal proceedings unfold, this case promises to be a crucial litmus test for the limits of legislative delegation in the context of capital punishment, potentially reshaping how death penalty states disclose and decide upon methods of execution moving forward.