an execution; it is silent on the activities that a witness can engage in. See id. And if the Alabama legislature intended to ban attorneys from attending executions and engaging in legal activities, it could have easily said that. One reason the legislature did not enact such a ban may be that the ban would have triggered immediate legal challenges. 2 . In the Department's denial letter, which Arthur attached to his complaint, the Department explicitly rejected Arthur’s request for his attorney to have access to a cell phone but only generally addressed his landline request. The Department was nonetheless clear that Arthur’s attorney will be completely barred from accessing a telephone during the execution. 3 . Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), 4 . Alabama's refusal also puts it at odds
holding that decisions by prior panels are binding holding that in a multipanel circuit prior panel decisions generally are binding upon newlyconstituted panels holding that circuit precedent is binding unless the relevant court of last resort has undercut the prior casess theory or reasoning holding that all decisions of the old fifth circuit handed down prior to the close of business on september 30 1981 are binding precedent in the eleventh circuit holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable