Pharmacy Providing Execution Drugs Cites Freedom Of Speech In Protecting Their Identity


In a rather odd turn of events, an anonymous pharmacy that provides execution drugs to the state of Missouri has cited Constitutional First Amendment freedom of speech protections to keep their identity hidden. According to Gizmodo, the pharmacy, known only as “M7”, has become the subject of a lawsuit filed by death row inmates in Mississippi — including information about the execution drugs they use, and their supplier.

M7’s attorneys were adamant that selling execution drugs qualifies as protected political speech.

“[Selling execution drugs] is an expression of political views, no different than signing a referendum petition or selling a T-shirt.”

The lawsuit subpoenaed the information months ago from the Missouri Department of Corrections, and Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has been unsuccessful in fighting it: the death row inmates who filed the lawsuit must suggest a better execution method than that currently used by Mississippi, and requested information on Missouri’s execution methods.

Now, for the first time, M7 has spoken up in its defense. Their attorneys claim that the request is simply an excuse to sic protesters on the pharmacy for their “decision to provide lethal chemicals to the Department… based on M7’s political views on the death penalty.”

“At issue in this matter is whether the discovery process can be used to find out the names of lethal chemical suppliers so that anti-death penalty activists may harass and boycott those suppliers in an effort to coerce them into not supplying lethal chemicals.”

While they don’t come up too often, death penalty protesters are more common than many think. [Image by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images]

Certainly, M7’s lawyers have a point; the pharmacy deserves protection just as much as providers of abortion drugs, and we have all seen the consequences to abortion doctors when their identities become public. Invoking the First Amendment just seems an odd way to go about it. But M7’s lawyers have been adamant in declaring M7’s actions to be political, and therefore, protected on First Amendment grounds. According to Buzzfeed, they have suggested specifically that their reasons for selling execution drugs are entirely political “and not based on economic reasons.”

Buzzfeed also noted that M7 has received more than $125,000 — all in cash — for the drugs used in the 16 executions, which is well above market value. Experts also expressed the opinion that the cash payments might violate federal tax law. M7’s attorneys responded by stating that “the fact that M7’s expression of political views involves a commercial transaction does not diminish M7’s First Amendment rights.”

The attorneys of the death row inmates have also subpoenaed similar information from several other states where executions had recently been carried out.

Meanwhile, M7’s attorneys are citing a 2010 Supreme Court case of Doe v. Reed to back up their position, another move which actually puts them on shaky legal ground. M7’s documents cite the case as one which “compelled disclosure of signatory information on referendum [is] subject to First Amendment review,” but failed to mention the outcome of the case, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were not, in general, subject to having their names protected under the First Amendment when requested under a state’s public records law. The Supreme Court was split on whether those names could ever be protected under the First Amendment, and more than half remained skeptical.

Chief Justice Roberts did, however, conclude that “[T]hose resisting disclosure can prevail under the First Amendment if they can show ‘a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure [of personal information] will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties,” a decision that M7’s attorneys are using to push their First Amendment defense, even bringing in an alleged “threat assessment expert” to testify to this effect.

As was seen in Colorado Springs last November, being a public provider of a controversial service can be dangerous. [Image by Justin Edmonds/Getty Images]

This marks the second time that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, having declined to squash the subpoena the first time, called the arguments too speculative.

M7, meanwhile, attempted to intervene in another open records case in Missouri this week, which has been ongoing for several years.

[Featured Image by Joe Raedle/Newsmakers]

Share this article: Pharmacy Providing Execution Drugs Cites Freedom Of Speech In Protecting Their Identity
More from Inquisitr