Dunn v. Ray
U.S. case related to religious freedom
Dunn v. Ray, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a February 2019 United States Supreme Court case related to religious freedom. The case attracted media attention in early February 2019.
Defendant Domineque Hakim Marcelle Ray (May 31, 1976 – February 7, 2019) was on Alabama death row for the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl, and had been given a life sentence for the murders of two brothers. He was scheduled for execution on February 7, 2019, and argued he had the right to have a Muslim imam present in the execution chamber, instead of the Christian chaplain mandated by Alabama's execution protocol. Ray received a stay from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals the day before his execution, but Alabama moved for the Supreme Court to vacate the stay of execution. The Supreme Court vacated the stay and Ray was executed on his scheduled date. He was one of 22 people executed in the United States in 2019.
The ruling against Ray was criticized by some commentators.
Background
Ray was found guilty of the February 1994 murder of brothers Reinhard and Ernest Mabins, after they refused to join a gang Ray and accomplice Marcus Owden were attempting to organize.
“Dunn v. Ray” enters the record as u.S. case related to religious freedom. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Dunn, case and related can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Dunn v. Ray” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Dunn, case and related provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q65120757. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2019, 1976 and 1994.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Dunn v. Ray”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Dunn v. Ray primary sources, Dunn v. Ray archive and Dunn research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Dunn v. Ray”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Dunn v. Ray” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.