In Shockley v. Adams, (ED MO, Oct. 11, 2025), a Missouri federal district court dismissed a death row inmate's RLUIPA lawsuit concluding that his religious exercise was not substantially burdened by a refusal to allow his daughters to be present in the execution chamber, administer communion, anoint him and pray over him there. Plaintiff has delayed his execution with decades of litigation. The court said in part:
Respondents claim that safety and security considerations, borne of their experience as corrections officials who have overseen several state-mandated executions, counsel strongly against allowing family members into the execution chamber.... Respondents have expressly agreed that Shockley’s daughters are welcome to be execution observers. And, Respondents have offered various accommodations, including having a non-family minister of Shockley’s own choosing provide and perform the exact same religious sacraments and rituals that Shockley desires....
In finding that the accommodations Respondents have offered do not substantially burden Shockley’s free exercise of religion, the Court also emphasizes what’s not in the record:
• Shockley does not assert that his daughters are his only spiritual advisors;
• Shockley does not assert that his daughters are the only ministers able or qualified to provide the religious sacraments and rituals he seeks;
• Shockley does not articulate how the accommodations substantially burden, or burden at all, his exercise of religion. Instead, he leaves it to be assumed;
• Shockley nowhere claims that he has a particularly unique spiritual bond with his daughters. Again, he leaves it to be assumed.
... Shockley has known of this issue for months and chose to file suit five days before his execution, so in this regard, the Court finds that Shockley’s delay and lack of development of the record are equitable considerations weighing against the extraordinary equitable relief of a stay of execution....
