Indiana law bars the press from witnessing state executions, allowing only the warden, prison physician, chaplain, and a limited number of family members of the victim or the condemned. Reporters may attend only if specifically invited by the inmate as one of their five designated friends. This policy, challenged by a coalition of news organizations, has now been upheld by a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a June 5 ruling.
The court's majority opinion argued that executions have not historically been open to the press and public in many parts of the country for over a century. It claimed that keeping reporters out protects the 'dignity' of the condemned. But critics—including dissenting Judge Candace Jackson-Akimumi—see this as a flimsy justification for state secrecy. As she wrote, press access 'does not depend on the government's or defendant's preferences' and is essential for accurate, neutral public accounts.
Indiana is now one of only two states—the other being Wyoming, which hasn't executed anyone since 1992—that completely excludes the press. Other death penalty states allow limited media witnesses. The lawsuit, brought by a coalition including the Reporters Committee for a Free Press, argued that executions have 'historically been open to the public or its surrogates in the press' and that firsthand accounts are critical for public trust.
When Indiana resumed executions in December 2024 after a 15-year pause, journalist Casey Smith of the Indiana Capital Chronicle was the only reporter allowed to attend, and only because death row inmate Joseph Corcoran invited him. Since then, two more men—Benjamin Ritchie in May 2025 and Roy Lee Ward in October—were executed with no press witnesses. The state's defense leans on the 'dignity' argument, claiming that allowing uninvited strangers to watch a prisoner die offends their final moments.
But as Judge Jackson-Akimumi noted in dissent, public access 'helps incentivize government officials to adhere to standards of decency and reveal any issues that occurred during an execution.' The Ninth Circuit made a similar point in 2002, stating that independent scrutiny plays a significant role in capital punishment's proper functioning and that restrictions often aim 'to conceal the harsh reality of executions from the public.'
The Seventh Circuit's decision sets up a potential Supreme Court showdown. Legal experts say the case could finally clarify whether the First Amendment guarantees press access to executions—a question that has lingered as states like Indiana push for greater secrecy. For now, the ruling leaves the public reliant on official accounts, raising concerns about accountability in a process where the stakes couldn't be higher.
As political battles over transparency intensify, this case echoes broader debates about government openness. For more on how state-level politics are reshaping power, see our analysis of five battleground governor races that could redraw state power maps. Meanwhile, the push for transparency in other policy areas, such as Justice Department probes into gas price manipulation, highlights the ongoing tension between public oversight and state authority.
Ultimately, the 'dignity' argument rings hollow when the state itself is taking a life. As Austin Sarat, a professor at Amherst College, put it: 'There is something odd about using the word dignity to describe what happens when the state kills one of its citizens.' The fight over press access is far from over, and the Supreme Court may soon have the final word.
