Https://factually.co/fact-checks /justice/indiana-2025-2026-bills -execution-methods-ffc46c

1. What the bills would do: new options, procedures and triggers

Senate Bill 11 would add firing squads as an authorized method when lethal injection drugs are unavailable or if the condemned requests it at least 30 days before execution; the introduced text establishes procedural details such as a five‑member firing squad chosen by the warden and other technical changes, with an effective date of July 1, 2026 ^{[2] [5]}. House Bill 1119, titled “Execution Methods,” would explicitly authorize both firing squad and nitrogen hypoxia, and would amend Indiana Code to allow the Department of Correction discretion over method selection and to protect state employees from being forced to participate ^{[6] [3]}.

2. How lawmakers justify the bills: supply, cost and federal coordination

Sponsors and some supporters argue the bills are a practical response to the increasing difficulty and cost of procuring lethal‑injection drugs — Indiana reportedly spent more than $1.17 million on doses in one year, with substantial waste when drugs expired — and point to other states reinstating alternate methods amid drug scarcity ^{[7] [8]}. Proponents also say aligning state law with federally permissible methods could assist the federal government’s use of the Terre Haute facility and reduce execution delays, a rationale that critics say masks other motives ^{[7] [3]}.

3. Opposition and constitutional, ethical and transparency concerns

Civil‑liberties advocates, led by groups such as the ACLU of Indiana, call the bills a “disturbing and barbaric escalation” that would expand inhumane options and shield execution practices from public scrutiny, arguing the secrecy provisions and immune identities for firing‑squad members would make oversight and accountability difficult ^[4]. Legal scholars and death‑penalty critics warn that adding methods like firing squads or nitrogen hypoxia raises constitutional and ethical questions about cruel and unusual punishment and could heighten public controversy even where courts have previously upheld such methods ^{[9] [10]}.

4. Political context and competing agendas

The measures sit at the intersection of practical administration, partisan politics and symbolic signaling: Republican lawmakers have filed the bills after a session that stalled on several death‑penalty proposals, with some leaders calling for legislative action while stopping short of endorsing specific methods; advocates for stricter state power and critics of pharmaceutical restrictions see political advantage, and at least one sponsor says the push was prompted by an ask from the White House — a claim that opponents cite as evidence the bills serve federal interests rather than purely state needs ^{[7] [11] [3]}. Simultaneously, at least one alternative bill (House Bill 1287) uses the debate to propose legislative oversight by requiring lawmakers to volunteer as execution team members, illustrating the wide range of political maneuvers in play ^[12].

5. Where things stand and what is not yet settled

As of committee hearings in January 2026, the bills have advanced in parts — HB 1119 was amended and moved to the full House, and SB 11 has been introduced and heard in committee — but significant legal challenges, public opposition and procedural deadlines in a shortened session mean passage and implementation are not guaranteed ^{[3] [2]}. Reporting documents the bills’ text and legislative movement and captures competing claims about motive and necessity, but does not resolve the deeper constitutional, moral or long‑term policy implications should one or both become law; those dimensions would play out in continued floor debates, potential litigation and administrative rulemaking ^{[2] [4]}.