A Marion County judge on Friday resolved a public records lawsuit in favor of the Indiana Capital Chronicle, granting summary judgment and finding that corrections officials violated Indiana’s public access law by improperly withholding the information.
Marion Superior Court Judge Clayton Graham ruled that the Indiana Department of Correction failed to respond to the Capital Chronicle’s June 2024 public records request within a reasonable time and wrongly denied access to records showing how much public money Indiana spent to obtain pentobarbital for executions.
“Clearly, defendants did not provide any information requested by the Plaintiff in a reasonable time,” Graham wrote in the order. “Defendants denied the record request for over six months which forced the plaintiffs to file a lawsuit in violation of APRA (Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act).”
Although Friday’s order required disclosure, the Capital Chronicle has already obtained limited cost information since filing suit — some through partial records releases by DOC and other details provided separately by the governor’s office in response to the Capital Chronicle’s questions and during public appearances last year.
Prior Capital Chronicle reporting has revealed the state has so far paid at least $1.275 million on pentobarbital since February 2024.
The Capital Chronicle, part of the States Newsroom network, sued the corrections department in January 2025 after repeated requests for the information were delayed or denied.
The news outlet sought records showing how much the state paid for pentobarbital — the drug used by Indiana in the three most recent capital cases after executions resumed following a years-long hiatus.
Graham noted that while Indiana law shields the identity of the entity that supplies execution drugs, it does not make the price confidential. A redacted invoice, he said, would have satisfied the request.
“[DOC] only provided a heavily redacted $900,000 cost figure to plaintiffs after being sued,” Graham wrote. He added that the information was released without sufficient explanation or context.
The judge also awarded the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, counsel for the Capital Chronicle, reasonable attorney fees and costs.
What we know about drugs costs, so far
The decision is the latest development in a long dispute over secrecy surrounding Indiana’s execution drugs and procedures.
State corrections officials had refused to disclose how much the state paid for pentobarbital, arguing that releasing the information could lead to the identification of the supplier.
Journalists and transparency advocates have repeatedly challenged, however.
Records obtained by the Capital Chronicle earlier in the litigation process, in March 2025, showed that Indiana paid $900,000 for pentobarbital used in executions carried out in late 2024.
Additional records released last week by Braun’s office revealed that the state paid another $100,000 for two more doses of pentobarbital used in the October 2025 execution of Roy Ward.
That disclosure came more than four months after the Capital Chronicle requested additional information about drug costs from prison officials.
The Capital Chronicle’s underlying lawsuit argued that DOC violated Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act, APRA, by delaying its response and improperly denying access to records that document public spending.
Graham agreed, citing state law requiring agencies to respond to public records requests within a reasonable time and placing the burden of nondisclosure on the government.
“A fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government is that government is the servant of the people and not their master,” the judge wrote, quoting Indiana’s public records statute.
“Providing persons with the information is an essential function of a representative government,” Graham continued, writing that APRA “shall be liberally construed” in favor of disclosure.
“Transparency is essential to accountability, and the court’s ruling affirms that the people of Indiana have a right to know how the state spends taxpayer money to carry out the death penalty,” said Kris Cundiff, an attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “We hope this decision sends a clear message that government agencies cannot withhold public records to avoid scrutiny of their most consequential decisions.”
Separate federal case over media access to executions continues
The Capital Chronicle and several other news organizations are additionally continuing to press a separate, still-pending federal lawsuit challenging Indiana’s ban on journalists witnessing executions.
That case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where a three-judge panel heard oral arguments Feb. 18 in Chicago.
The plaintiffs — which include the Indiana Capital Chronicle, along with The Associated Press, Gannett, TEGNA and others — are appealing a May 2025 decision by Judge Matthew Brookman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, who denied a request for a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily blocked enforcement of a state law barring journalists from witnessing executions.
New records show additional Indiana dollars paid for last round of execution drugs
During the Seventh Circuit hearing, Lin Weeks, an attorney with the Reporters Committee representing the media plaintiffs, argued that excluding the press undermines public oversight of a critical government function.
“When the Indiana Supreme Court enters an order setting an execution date, the result is a highly regulated event,” Weeks told the court. “Under the status quo, the press during the execution stands out in the parking lot, literally and figuratively in the dark while Indiana conducts its execution.”
Weeks called Indiana “an extreme outlier,” noting that nearly every other death-penalty state allows media witnesses. Of the 27 other death penalty states, Wyoming is the only other one with no access for the press.
“The press serves the public by checking the government, by facilitating discourse and by serving as the public’s eyes and ears,” Weeks said. “Laws that unduly or significantly restrict those functions must be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.”
An attorney for the state pushed back. Megan Smith, an assistant section chief in the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, argued that journalists are not entitled to greater access than the general public and that executions take place in a nonpublic forum.
“They are not concerned with public access, but their own ability to observe executions for reporting purposes,” Smith told the court.
She also emphasized that executions have not been subject to a “continuous tradition” of public access and that the press cannot claim a special constitutional right to attend them.
“The public does not have general access to penal facilities,” Smith said, adding that restrictions are permitted based on “correctional officials’ expertise and the purview of the legislature.”
The Seventh Circuit panel took the case under advisement but has not yet issued a decision.
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com.