for various reasons, the Protocol violates the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. During the course of the litigation, the parties became embroiled in a discovery dispute, which eventually resulted in this Court’s March 10, 2015 decision, West v. Schofield, 460 S.W.3d 113 (Tenn. 2015). In this first interlocutory decision, we, inter alia, made clear that the Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action was limited to challenging the Protocol on its face, as opposed to any as-applied challenges. Id. at 131-32. This Court issued a second interlocutory decision after the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to challenge the constitutionality of a 2014 statute that designated electrocution as an alternative method of execution. See West v. Schofield, 468 S.W.3d 482, 484-85 (Tenn. 2015) (<HOLDING>). In between these two decisions, the trial
holding that the carrying out of an execution after the first execution attempt had failed did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment holding that a release of such claims or other matters arising from the beginning of time to the date of execution of this agreement did not protect the defendant from liability arising from unconstitutional conduct that occurred after the agreements execution holding that because the plaintiffs are not currently subject to execution by electrocution and will not ever become subject to execution by electrocution unless one of two statutory contingencies occurs in the future their claims challenging the constitutionality of the 2014 statute and electrocution as a means of execution are not ripe and reversing the trial courts denial of the defendants motion to dismiss these claims holding creditors who obtained judgment subsequent to corporations execution of mortgage had no right to challenge mortgages execution holding that defendants claim that execution by electrocution or lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is meritless