The state told the defense it intends to use a two-drug cocktail of Midazolam and Hydromorphone but refused to provide the name of the manufacturer and other requested information. It advised that:

[I]t had chosen the amounts of both drugs based on declarations and sworn testimony in “the Ohio Execution Protocol litigation.” It also indicated that the drugs would be domestically obtained and FDA-approved, although it would not release other identifying information, citing Arizona’s confidentiality law....

The defense then renewed its request for:

(1) the source(s), manufacturer(s), National Drug Codes (“NDCs”), and lot numbers of the drugs the Department intends to use in his execution; (2) non-personally identifying information detailing the qualifications of the personnel the Department will use in his execution; and (3) information and documents explaining how the Department developed its current lethal-injection drug protocol.

The state refused and Mr. Wood filed suit. He argued that by deliberately concealing the information about the lethal injection drugs and procedures, the state violated his:

(1) First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances and (2) First Amendment right to be informed about the manner in which Arizona implements the death penalty;

He also argued that Arizona’s protocol was developed without compliance with the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, in violation of the Supremacy clause.

The trial court rejected his arguments and he appealed. The 9th Circuit granted the stay. The Court noted the two botched executions in Oklahoma and one in Ohio using these same two drugs.

Given the law in California First Amendment Coalition, and the factual backdrop of the past six months in particular, more information about the drugs used in lethal injections can help an alert public make better informed decisions about the changing standards of decency in this country surrounding lethal injection. Knowing the source and manufacturer of the drugs, along with the lot numbers and NDCs, allows the public to discern whether state corrections departments are using safe and reliable drug manufacturers.

Similarly, knowing the specific qualifications of those who will perform the execution will give the public more confidence than a state’s generic assurance that executions will be administered safely and pursuant to certain qualifications and standards.

Arizona argues that the information Wood seeks offers little value to the public debate and that releasing this information will serve instead to deter drug.

The Court rejected Arizona's argument:

In sum, Wood has raised serious questions on the merits as to the positive role that access to lethal-injection drug information and executioner qualifications will have in the public debate on methods of execution. And given the evidence presented by Wood regarding the historical right of access, we conclude that Wood has raised serious questions as to whether a First Amendment right, in the context of a public executions, attaches to the specific information he requests.

The Court found Wood established irreparable injury and that the balance of equities tips sharply in his favor. It also said:

Here, the State has announced that it will use an untested protocol, and that it reserves the right to use Pentobarbital if it becomes available. The recent history in Arizona does not provide a reliable source of data as to its current method of execution, underscoring the need for transparency. Information concerning execution protocol is not only of general interest to the public, it is important for consideration by the courts.

As examples, the Court refers to prior decisions banning executions by the gas chamber and hanging. Both relied on information about the procedures.

We, and the public, cannot meaningfully evaluate execution protocol cloaked in secrecy. It is in the public’s interest that Wood’s injunction be granted.

The stay will last until the State provides the defense with:

(a) the name and provenance of the drugs to be used in the execution and (b) the qualifications of the medical personnel, subject to the restriction that the information provided will not give the means by which the specific individuals can be identified.