« Two distinct SCOTUS dissents from the denial of cert in capital federal habeas cases | Main | Providing great reading (and little else of consequences), concurring and dissenting Justices use Glossip to debate death penalty's constitutionality »

June 29, 2015

SCOTUS rules 5-4 against capital defendant's challenge to execution protocol in Glossip v. Gross

The Supreme Court handed down this morning the last big opinion of likely interest to sentencing fans via Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7599 (S. Ct. June 29, 2015) (available here).  Here is how Justice Alito's opinion for the Court gets started:

Prisoners sentenced to death in the State of Oklahoma filed an action in federal court under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. §1983, contending that the method of execution now used by the State violates the Eighth Amendment because it creates an unacceptable risk of severe pain.  They argue that midazolam, the first drug employed in the State’s current three-drug protocol, fails to render a person insensate to pain.  After holding an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied four prisoners’ application for a preliminary injunction, finding that they had failed to prove that midazolam is ineffective.  The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed and accepted the District Court’s finding of fact regarding midazolam’s efficacy.

For two independent reasons, we also affirm.  First, the prisoners failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a lesser risk of pain, a requirement of all Eighth Amendment method-ofexecution claims.  See Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 61 (2008) (plurality opinion).  Second, the District Court did not commit clear error when it found that the prisoners failed to establish that Oklahoma’s use of a massive dose of midazolam in its execution protocol entails a substantial risk of severe pain.

Based on a too-quick read, the majority opinion seems like a big win for states seeking to move forward even with new and questionable execution methods. I doubt Glossip will halt all the lower-court litigation on state execution protocols, but it certainly should provide lower court judges a much clearer standard and basis for rejecting Eighth Amendment claims in this setting.

June 29, 2015 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

Comments

For the known alternative method rule from Baze to move from a plurality to an actual holding of the court is a big deal. Before, since Kennedy didn't sign on to that portion of Baze, it likely wasn't binding under Marks but now .. It will be interesting to see just how the court overseeing the California case responds to this re-affirmation that the burden in such cases is entirely the offender's.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Jun 29, 2015 10:27:44 AM

"a big win for states seeking to move forward even with new and questionable execution methods"

How charming as a matter of due process and the 8A.

Posted by: Joe | Jun 29, 2015 10:56:39 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB