Hoffman v. Westcott

_________________
_________________
1 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)
G
ORSUCH, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A893
JESSIE HOFFMAN v. GARY WESTCOTT, SECRETARY,
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CORRECTIONS,
ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[March 18, 2025]
The application for stay of execution of sentence of death
presented to J
USTICE ALITO and by him referred to the
Court is denied. J
USTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, and
J
USTICE JACKSON would grant the application for stay of
execution.
J
USTICE GORSUCH, dissenting.
The State of Louisiana plans to execute Jessie Hoffman
tonight. Mr. Hoffman is a Buddhist. And he argues that
the State’s chosen method of execution—nitrogen hy-
poxia—violates his rights under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U. S. C.
§2000cc et seq. (RLUIPA). Nitrogen hypoxia will, he says,
substantially burden his religious exercise by interfering
with his meditative breathing as he dies. See Complaint in
No. 25–169 (MD La.), ¶¶235–236. No one has questioned
the sincerity of Mr. Hoffman’s religious beliefs. Yet the dis-
trict court rejected his RLUIPA claim anyway based on its
own “find[ing]” about the kind of breathing Mr. Hoffman’s
faith requires. App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a.
That finding contravened the fundamental principle that
courts have “no license to declare . . . whether an adherent
has ‘correctly perceived’ the commands of his religion.”
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights

2 HOFFMAN v. WESTCOTT
G
ORSUCH, J., dissenting
Comm’n, 584 U. S. 617, 651 (2018) (GORSUCH, J., concur-
ring) (quoting Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment
Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 716 (1981)); see, e.g., Holt v.
Hobbs, 574 U. S. 352, 361–362 (2015); Burwell v. Hobby
Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U. S. 682, 724–725 (2014). The
Court of Appeals failed to confront the district court’s ap-
parent legal error—or even to mention the RLUIPA claim
Mr. Hoffman pressed on appeal. Perhaps that claim ulti-
mately lacks merit. But the Fifth Circuit’s unexplained
omission leaves this Court poorly positioned to assess it. I
would therefore grant the stay application and petition for
writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Fifth Circuit,
and remand for that court to address Mr. Hoffman’s
RLUIPA claim in the first instance.