- Court: U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
- Area(s) of Law: Constitutional Law
- Date Filed: April 30, 2018
- Case #: 17-8151
- Judge(s)/Court Below: 883 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 2018)
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner, a death-row inmate, suffers from a rare disease known as cavernous hemangioma. An expert concluded that, due to this disease, Petitioner will suffer from “the excruciating pain of prolonged suffocation” during his execution. Petitioner challenged the lethal injection method as applied, claiming that the excruciating pain and needless suffering of the State’s method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment. A panel on the Eighth Circuit held that the execution is not cruel and unusual, reasoning that Petitioner did not prove that the alternative method of lethal gas would substantially reduce his risk of needless suffering. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Petitioner argues that the Eighth Circuit erred in requiring courts to assume that medical staff are competent to deal with the condition and the execution will happen as intended; that there must be a single witness to compare the methods and find that one is better; and that an inmate challenging a method of execution as applied must provide an alternative that is “feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain.” In addition to addressing those issues, the Supreme Court asks the parties to address whether Petitioner met the standard set forth in Glossip v. Gross 576 U. S. ____ (2015), requiring Petitioner to prove the procedures in his alternative method, the pain and duration likely to be produced, and how the alternative method compares to the State’s method.