Arkansas nitrogen gas execution bill clears House and heads for Senate
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Arkansas is one step closer to approving nitrogen gas as a method of execution in capital cases.
House Bill 1489 passed the House Tuesday afternoon in a 67-23 vote for that chamber. If the bill becomes law, it would allow the execution of an inmate by nitrogen gas.
What happened at the nation's first nitrogen gas execution: An AP eyewitness account
Arkansas, like other states, is having trouble accessing the drugs used to execute capital offense prisoners. HB1489 would allow nitrogen to be used as an execution method through nitrogen hypoxia, where a mask is fitted to the condemned and they inhale the gas to the point of suffocation.
Alabama was the first state to approve and use nitrogen gas for an execution. Reverend Jeff Hood attended to the January 2024 execution of 58-year-old Kenneth Eugene Smith. Hood testified to the House Judiciary Committee that Smith's execution was horrific as he reacted to the gas, calling the execution method 'torture.'
Alabama conducts first-ever execution by nitrogen hypoxia
The state has 26 prisoners on death row, and its last execution was in 2017.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Johnson Urges Senate to Minimize Changes to $40,000 SALT Deal
House Speaker Mike Johnson said he's pressuring Senate Republicans to refrain from changing a deal to increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000, pushing back on President Donald Trump's willingness to scale back the write-off. 'I've asked them to modify it as little as possible because I've got a very delicate balance there,' Johnson told reporters at the White House on Monday.
Associated Press
13 minutes ago
- Associated Press
South Carolina senator sues his own legislature over $18,000-a-year pay raise
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A state senator is suing his fellow lawmakers in the South Carolina General Assembly saying they are illegally giving themselves what is effectively an $18,000-a-year raise for all members. The increase in the 'in-district compensation' — money set aside for legislative duties that has few limits on how it can be spent — is set to go from $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month for all 46 senators and 124 House members starting July 1. But Republican Sen. Wes Climer's lawsuit said the raise violates the state constitution, which bans the legislature from increasing their per diem during their term. House members would get 18 months of the extra money and senators would get more than three years of payments before facing reelection. His lawsuit compared it to asking a judge to preside over his own trial or a police officer to investigate himself. The legal question will likely hinge on whether the extra money is considered part of a per diem for lawmakers and meant to pay their daily expenses or if it is personal income that is taxable. Lawyers for the House and Senate have not answered the lawsuit. The raise was proposed by Republican Sen. Shane Martin late in the budget process in a proviso, which is a one-year order on how to spend money. The monthly stipend hadn't changed in about 30 years, and Martin said the increase was needed to offset inflation. Climer said Monday he and other opponents of the increase think it should have passed as a stand-alone bill with hearings and a full debate. 'Regardless of how you feel about a legislative pay raise, this is the wrong way to do it. It violates the Madisonian principles that the legislature cannot take the people's money and appropriate it to themselves in real time,' Climer said. Hours after receiving word of the lawsuit, the state Supreme Court ordered both sides to submit briefs before the end of the month in what appears to be an effort to make some kind of decision before the raises start when the fiscal year begins July 1. Otherwise 'we'd have to try to claw back money from legislators. And we don't want that,' said former Democratic state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, an attorney who filed the lawsuit on Climer's behalf. Along with the in-district compensation, lawmakers also get a salary of $10,400 a year that has not changed since 1990. In addition, they get money for meals, mileage to drive to Columbia and hotel rooms while in session. Legislators are considered part-time because South Carolina's General Assembly meets three days a week from January to May. The House sent an email to its 124 members giving them a chance to refuse the extra in-district compensation, and 34 declined the money, House Clerk Charles Reid said in an email. Senators could ask their clerk directly not to pay them, and Climer and two other Republicans have refused the raise, Senate Clerk Jeffrey Gossett said. Joining Climer in the lawsuit is retired educator and Republican activist Carol Herring. She said the raise going into effect immediately is counterproductive to being a good servant. 'I am concerned we are sending people to Columbia to serve in the General Assembly, and somehow it is seen more as a job than part-time service to our state,' Herring said.
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump administration urges court not to dismiss case against Wisconsin judge
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Trump administration argued Monday that charges should not be dropped against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted for allegedly helping a man who is in the country evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse. Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice urged a federal judge to reject a motion filed by Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan seeking to dismiss the charges against her, saying doing so would be 'unprecedented' and allow judges to be above the law. Dugan faces a July 21 trial in the case that escalated a clash between Trump's administration and opponents over the Republican president's sweeping immigration crackdown. Trump critics contend that Dugan's arrest went too far and that the administration is trying to make an example out of her to discourage judicial opposition to the crackdown. The accusations against Dugan Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him for being in the country illegally. She could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts. Her attorneys say she's innocent. They filed a motion last month to dismiss the case, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. They also maintain that the federal government violated Wisconsin's sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge. Trump administration response Justice Department attorneys responded in a court filing Monday, saying dismissing the charges against the judge on the grounds that she is immune would be unprecedented and would ignore 'well-established law that has long permitted judges to be prosecuted for crimes they commit.' 'Such a ruling would give state court judges carte blanche to interfere with valid law enforcement actions by federal agents in public hallways of a courthouse, and perhaps even beyond,' Justice Department attorneys argued. 'Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement.' Dugan's attorney, Craig Mastantuono, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. In her motion to dismiss, Dugan argued that her conduct amounted to directing people's movement in and around her courtroom, and that she enjoys legal immunity for official acts she performs as a judge. She also accused the federal government of violating Wisconsin's sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge. Dugan's case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed. The case background According to prosecutors, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz illegally reentered the U.S. after being deported in 2013. He was charged in March with misdemeanor domestic violence in Milwaukee County and was in Dugan's courtroom for a hearing in that case on April 18. Dugan's clerk alerted her that immigration agents were in the courthouse looking to arrest Flores-Ruiz, prosecutors allege in court documents. According to an affidavit, Dugan became visibly angry at the agents' arrival and called the situation 'absurd.' After discussing the warrant for Flores-Ruiz's arrest with the agents, Dugan demanded that they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom. She then returned to the courtroom, was heard saying something to the effect of 'wait, come with me,' and then showed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a back door, the affidavit says. The immigration agents eventually detained Flores-Ruiz outside the building following a foot chase. Dugan, 66, was arrested by the FBI on April 25 at the courthouse. A grand jury indicted Dugan on May 13 and she pleaded not guilty on May 15. Dugan defense fund A legal defense fund created by Dugan supporters to help pay for her high-profile defense attorneys has raised more than $137,000 in three weeks from more than 2,800 donors. Her legal team includes former U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. Both were appointed by Republican presidents. She has also hired prominent attorneys in Milwaukee and Madison. 'This is an impressive show of support for the defense fund, highlighting that the public believes in protecting a fair and independent judiciary,' former Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske, the fund's trustee, said Monday. 'The fund will continue to raise grassroots donations and uphold strict guidelines to ensure transparency and accountability.' Dugan is not required to list the donor names until she submits her annual financial disclosure form, which is due in April. Numerous people are prohibited from donating, including Milwaukee County residents; attorneys who practice in the county; lobbyists; judges; parties with pending matters before any Milwaukee County judge; and county employees.
