US Department of Justice rules that convicted murderers can face execution by firing squad

The US Department of Justice has concluded that federal executions may be carried out by firing squad in certain circumstances, clearing a path for one of the oldest methods of capital punishment to be used again in modern America. The move reshapes how the federal government interprets its own death penalty laws and has ignited a fresh clash over what counts as a “humane” way to kill.

The decision comes amid ongoing shortages of lethal injection drugs and growing legal challenges to existing protocols, placing firing squads back at the center of a debate that blends constitutional law, medical ethics, and raw politics.

What happened

The Department of Justice reviewed how federal executions can be performed under existing statutes that require the government to follow the law of the state where a death sentence is imposed. In that analysis, officials concluded that, when a state authorizes it, a condemned prisoner may be executed by firing squad and still satisfy federal law. The ruling focuses on method rather than guilt, but its practical effect is to add a new, explicit option for how the federal government can carry out death sentences.

According to reporting on the internal guidance, the department framed firing squads as a lawful alternative in states that already list them in their execution codes. Several states, including Utah, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, have enacted statutes that permit firing squads in specific situations, often when lethal injection drugs are unavailable or when a prisoner successfully challenges the injection protocol. By aligning federal practice with those state provisions, the department signaled that condemned prisoners convicted of federal murder in those jurisdictions could face a firing squad if other methods are blocked.

The decision follows a broader federal effort to diversify execution methods after years of litigation over lethal injection. During a previous wave of federal executions, the government modified its regulations to allow it to adopt “any manner” of execution permitted in the state of conviction, which opened the door to methods such as electrocution, gas, or firing squad. The new interpretation takes that regulatory flexibility and applies it directly to the question of whether firing squads are compatible with federal law in murder cases.

Coverage of the ruling has emphasized that the department did not create firing squads out of thin air. Instead, it relied on existing state statutes and prior regulatory changes, then clarified that those rules can apply to federal prisoners sentenced for murder. One analysis described how the department’s lawyers treated firing squads as one of several “fallback” methods that can be used when lethal injection is not feasible, a category that also includes the electric chair and nitrogen gas in some states.

Public reaction has been sharply divided. Some victims’ families and law‑and‑order advocates have welcomed the decision as a way to avoid lengthy delays tied to lethal injection challenges. Others, including civil liberties groups and death penalty opponents, have condemned the move as a step backward that normalizes a method many associate with military executions and authoritarian regimes. International coverage, including a detailed report by the BBC, has framed the ruling as part of a wider global divergence, with the United States retaining capital punishment while many allies have abolished it.

Why it matters

The legal significance of the Department of Justice decision lies in how it interprets the Eighth Amendment prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” in light of modern execution methods. Courts have repeatedly held that the Constitution does not guarantee a painless death, but they have required that states avoid methods that present a substantial risk of severe suffering when alternatives are available. Within that framework, firing squads have reemerged as a paradoxical candidate: visually brutal, but arguably more reliable and quicker than some botched lethal injections.

In recent years, several executions using lethal injection have gone wrong, with prisoners gasping for air, suffering prolonged deaths, or requiring multiple attempts to insert IV lines. Those failures have fueled litigation and public scrutiny. In response, some death penalty proponents now argue that a trained firing squad, using rifles aimed at the heart, causes near‑instant death and reduces the risk of lingering pain. That argument has found its way into court filings in states like Utah and South Carolina, where lawyers for condemned prisoners have, at times, requested firing squads as a less risky alternative to experimental drug cocktails.

The Department of Justice ruling effectively validates that reasoning at the federal level. By accepting firing squads as a lawful method for federal executions in murder cases, the department gives states and federal prosecutors a new tool when pharmaceutical companies refuse to supply lethal injection drugs or when courts block specific protocols. A detailed account in Globe Magazine describes how shortages of drugs like pentobarbital and midazolam have already forced states to improvise, sometimes with troubling results.

The policy also carries symbolic weight. Capital punishment in the United States has long tried to present itself as clinical and sanitized, with execution chambers designed to resemble medical settings. Firing squads strip away some of that veneer. They involve visible firearms, multiple shooters, and a more direct use of state violence. For critics, that imagery reinforces their argument that the death penalty is inherently degrading and incompatible with evolving standards of decency. For supporters, the starkness is part of the point: a punishment that reflects the gravity of murder.

There are practical implications for federal death row as well. Prisoners convicted of federal murder in states that authorize firing squads may now face a different risk calculus when they litigate their sentences. Legal teams will likely adjust their strategies, weighing whether challenges to lethal injection could unintentionally steer clients toward a firing squad instead. Prosecutors, in turn, may see fewer avenues for delay if courts accept the Justice Department’s position that firing squads are clearly authorized and constitutionally acceptable.

The decision also affects the broader political debate over the federal death penalty. Some members of Congress have pushed for abolition or for a formal moratorium, while others have introduced bills to expand capital punishment for crimes such as mass shootings or certain acts of terrorism. By normalizing a wider menu of execution methods, the Department of Justice has effectively strengthened the operational side of capital punishment at a moment when its political future remains contested.

Internationally, the move could deepen tensions with human rights advocates and foreign governments that oppose the death penalty. European Union rules already restrict the export of drugs used in executions, which helped create the lethal injection shortages that pushed American officials toward alternatives. The reintroduction of firing squads into federal practice may reinforce those restrictions and invite new diplomatic criticism, especially when foreign nationals are on death row.

What to watch next

The next phase of this story will likely unfold in courtrooms. Defense lawyers are expected to challenge the Department of Justice interpretation, arguing that firing squads violate the Eighth Amendment or that the department exceeded its authority in extending state methods to federal prisoners. Federal judges will have to weigh competing expert testimony on pain, reliability, and historical practice, and appeals could send the issue toward the Supreme Court.

States that already authorize firing squads will be key testing grounds. If Utah, South Carolina, Mississippi, or Oklahoma schedule executions by firing squad, those cases will generate detailed factual records about how the method is implemented in practice, from the training of shooters to the design of the execution chamber. Federal courts are likely to scrutinize those records closely when deciding whether similar procedures can be used for federal prisoners convicted of murder in those states.

Policy shifts inside the Department of Justice are another variable. A future attorney general could revise or rescind the current interpretation, particularly if a presidential administration adopts a formal moratorium on federal executions. Internal guidelines on when prosecutors may seek the death penalty, how they consult with victims’ families, and how they choose among available methods will shape how often firing squads move from theory to reality.