IndyStar, other news outlets file First Amendment lawsuit seeking media access to executions
On May 5, 2025, five media outlets represented by the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a complaint in the Southern District of Indiana against the state's highest-ranking prison officials, who are charged with carrying out the media ban.
The plaintiffs — the Associated Press, States Newsroom, Circle City Broadcasting, Tegna and Gannett, which owns IndyStar and several other Indiana publications — argue that excluding media from executions violates the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press, in turn limiting the public's ability to understand the proceedings.
In nearly every other death-penalty state, media representatives can gather firsthand information and serve as "surrogates for the public." The complaint cites Associated Press reporters' eyewitness accounts of botched executions in Idaho and Alabama.
"This coverage required reporter access to witness execution proceedings first-hand. A lack of access leaves the public with an incomplete understanding of the proceedings," the lawsuit reads.
Wyoming, the only other state that prohibits media witnesses from executions, has not carried out the death penalty since 1992, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
The lawsuit asks for the court to permit a media representative to attend executions.
In December 2024, Indiana carried out its first execution in 15 years. Journalist Casey Smith of the Indiana Capital Chronicle was able to attend, but only because she was one of the five people invited by the condemned man, Joseph Corcoran. Even then, the lawsuit says, Smith and other witnesses had little visibility and had to rely on a prison official to report Corcoran's last words.
The filing comes just about two weeks before the scheduled execution of Benjamin Ritchie, who was convicted of killing a Beech Grove police officer in 2002.
Ritchie requested a stay of the execution so he could pursue more legal claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective counsel and a suspected diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected that bid last month in an evenly divided vote and was obligated to schedule a date for the execution.
Ritchie is one of seven people currently on Indiana's death row. Three federal death row inmates remain at the maximum-security prison in Terre Haute.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
DC residents heckle authorities at checkpoint amid ramped-up federal presence
Federal law enforcement officers in Washington were heckled Wednesday as tensions rise in the nation's capital over President Trump's moves to take over the local police force. A group of protestors near the 14th Street NW corridor, where the agents established a vehicle checkpoint, shouted out or held up signs with phrases such as 'Go home, fascists' and 'Get off our streets,' The Associated Press reported. The group also encouraged drivers to take other routes to avoid the officers, according to the news wire. National Guard vehicles were also spotted near the National Mall early Thursday, according to NewsNation's Cameron Congdon. Trump announced Monday his administration would take federal control of Washington's police force, citing 'out-of-control' crime and violence in the city. The president also deployed hundreds of National Guard service members to the district a day later to assist with patrolling the streets. On Wednesday, Trump signaled he would go before Congress to ask for an extension on his federal takeover. Under Washington's 'Home Rule Act,' the president can only take authority over the local police department for up to 30 days without the approval of lawmakers. 'And we're going to be asking for an extension on that, long-term extensions, because you can't have 30 days. Thirty days is, that's, by the time you do it — we're going to have this in good shape,' he said, adding, 'We're going to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions.' 'I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will. But I think the Republicans in Congress will approve this pretty much unanimously,' the president added. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) pushed back on the sentiment, arguing that Democrats would not go along with Trump's request. 'No f‑‑‑ing way,' Schumer told podcaster Aaron Parnas. 'We'll fight him tooth and nail. 'He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don't like either,' he added. Other Democrats, including local authorities, have also criticized the administration's efforts as 'unprecedented' and 'unnecessary,' citing data showing that crime in the district is declining. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying.
The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. A recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to overturn the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, giving the entire LGBTQ+ community reason to be fearful – even if the case is unlikely to be heard by the court. Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky, filed a petition in late July asking the court to appeal a decision that she must pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue a gay couple a marriage license after the Obergefell decision came down. According to the appeal, this infringed upon Davis' First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There are a variety of reasons gay marriage is likely safe despite this appeal, including changing opinions on the court, public support for same-sex marriage and the 2022 Respect For Marriage Act. It doesn't change the fact that the very notion of this right being overturned is a reminder to the LGBTQ+ community that our rights are dependent upon the whims of politicians and judges, and could easily disappear. I don't trust this Supreme Court to leave same-sex marriage alone In 2015, Davis wound up in jail for six days for contempt of court when she refused to grant a marriage license to gay couples in Rowan County, Kentucky. One couple who were refused a license, David Moore and David Ermold, sued Davis for violating their constitutional right to marry. Moore and Ermold were awarded $50,000 each in damages, plus $260,000 for legal fees. Davis attempted to appeal the ruling with the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals but was denied this March. She then sent her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in July, which is how we ended up here. Mat Staver, Davis' lawyer, told Fox News he believes this case will be heard by the nation's highest court based on the fact that three of the dissenting justices from Obergefell – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito – are still on the court. Other legal scholars aren't so sure that five justices are willing to overrule the case. Robbie Kaplan, a lawyer who argued in defense of LGBTQ+ rights in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 in a ruling that eventually paved the way for Obergefell, told Axios it would cause a lot more legal problems than it's worth. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan said. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Opinion: I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose. I'm skeptical that the very court that sent abortion rights back to the states cares about the legal complications that a ruling like this could cause. In the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, Thomas even issued a concurrent opinion saying he believed Obergefell should be reconsidered. The Supreme Court has also asked Moore and Ermold to respond to Davis' petition, which hints at the possibility that this case could be considered by the court. Kim Davis' petition reminds us our rights are revocable Davis' appeal isn't the only attack on gay marriage since President Donald Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took the majority in Congress. Resolutions were introduced in five states that would have formally asked the Supreme Court to review Obergefell. In two of those states, Idaho and North Dakota, the resolutions passed the House of Representatives before failing in the Senate. While these measures were unsuccessful, it's a sign of growing discontent among Republican politicians with the legality of same-sex marriage. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention voted for a resolution to ask the court to reconsider gay marriage. A denomination may have no legal authority in our secular government, but the resolution signals that we should be worried. Opinion: I told you GOP would come for marriage. Southern Baptists just proved my point. The fact that these resolutions were even introduced is scary for the LGBTQ+ community. It's a sign that there are still people out there who think we shouldn't be able to marry the people we love, that our rights as couples should differ from the rights of straight couples merely based on a few verses in the Bible. It's a reminder that the rights we fought for years to gain can be reversed, that all it takes is a conservative shift in government to send us back to a time before legal gay marriage. What would happen if gay marriage were overturned? Thankfully, Democrats in 2022 passed the Respect For Marriage Act, which says that same-sex and interracial marriages must be recognized by the federal government and every state, even if Obergefell were to fall. However, the loss of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling would affect future generations of LGBTQ+ people looking to get married. If the Obergefell ruling were overturned tomorrow, same-sex marriage would become illegal in 32 states that have constitutional and/or legislative bans on marriage equality. This would affect more than half of the LGBTQ+ people in the United States. Per a May 2025 Gallup poll, 68% of Americans say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized. While this is a safe majority of people, support is down from a high of 71% in 2023 – signaling a potential shift in the acceptability of gay marriage nationwide. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. I'm also not one to believe that public support will sway the justices from hearing a case. After all, abortion rights were also widely popular, but that didn't stop the court from sending legality back to the states. Gay marriage is not going to disappear tomorrow. This does mean, however, that gay people are once again being reminded that their rights are dependent on a handful of people and the opinions of politicians and can easily be stripped away. We've already witnessed how the trans community has lost rights in a matter of months. The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. Even if it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up this review, the fact that an appeal was even introduced is bringing anxiety to the LGBTQ+ community – and it should be taken seriously. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
5 hours ago
In letter to Putin, US first lady asks him to consider the children in push to end war in Ukraine
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Melania Trump took the unique step of crafting a letter that calls for peace in Ukraine, having her husband President Donald Trump hand-deliver it to Russian President Vladimir Putin during their Friday meeting in Alaska. The letter did not specifically name Ukraine, which Putin's forces invaded in 2022, but beseeched him to think of children and 'an innocence which stands above geography, government, and ideology.' Nor did the American first lady discuss the fighting other than to say to Putin that he could 'singlehandedly restore' the 'melodic laughter' of children who have been caught in the conflict. 'In protecting the innocence of these children, you will do more than serve Russia alone — you serve humanity itself,' she wrote on White House stationery. A copy of the letter was first obtained by Fox News Digital and later posted on social media by supporters of the U.S. president, including Attorney General Pam Bondi. The first lady said that Putin could help these children with the stroke of a pen. Putin's invasion of Ukraine has resulted in Russia taking Ukrainian children out of their country so that they can be raised as Russian. The Associated Press documented the grabbing of Ukrainian children in 2022, after which the International Criminal Court said it had issued an arrest warrant for Putin for war crimes, accusing him of personal responsibility for the abductions of children from Ukraine.
