Glossip v. Gross

Glossip v. Gross

Argued April 29, 2015
Decided June 29, 2015
Full case name Richard E. Glossip, et al. v. Kevin J. Gross, et al.
Docket nos. 14-7955
Citations

576 U.S. ___ (more)

Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Prior history Glossip v. State, 2007 OK CR 12, 157 P.3d 143
Holding

(1) Petitioners are not entitled to a preliminary injunction to stay their executions, because they have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment.

(2) Petitioners have the burden of proof that a method of execution involves any risk of harm which is substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method.

(3) The District Court factual findings are reviewed under the deferential “clear error” standard.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence Scalia, joined by Thomas
Concurrence Thomas, joined by Scalia
Dissent Breyer, joined by Ginsburg
Dissent Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
Laws applied
42 U.S.C. § 1983

Glossip v. Gross is a 2015 United States Supreme Court case that ruled executions carried out by a three-drug protocol of midazolam, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[1][2] The petitioners argued that the midazolam, intended to be used as sedative, would not render them unable to feel the pain of the other two drugs. The proceeding was initially titled Warner v. Gross, but was renamed after lead plaintiff Charles Warner was executed while awaiting consideration of his case[3] (the Supreme Court refused to grant him a stay of execution while he was waiting to hear if they would take his case, because while an appeal only requires 4 justices to agree, it requires 5 to issue a stay of execution.)

On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners in a 5–4 decision, saying they had "failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment."[4][5] Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined."[4]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, in which Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan joined. Sotomayor stated that "under the Court’s new rule, it would not matter whether the State intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death, or actually burned at the stake: because petitioners failed to prove the availability of sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, the State could execute them using whatever means it designate.[4]

Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, filed a separate dissent, stating, "I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment. At the very least, the Court should call for full briefing on the basic question".[4] In response, Scalia and Thomas each filed separate concurring opinions as rebuttals to Breyer. Scalia stated that "The Framers of our Constitution disagreed bitterly on the matter [of capital punishment]. For that reason, they handled it the same way they handled many other controversial issues: they left it to the People to decide. By arrogating to himself the power to overturn that decision, Justice Breyer does not just reject the death penalty, he rejects the Enlightenment".[4] Thomas wrote that "the best solution is for the Court to stop making up Eighth Amendment claims in its ceaseless quest to end the death penalty through undemocratic means".[4]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Glossip v. Gross". SCOTUSblog. Apr 29, 2015.
  2. ↑ Lithwick, Dahlia (April 30, 2015). "A Horrifying Day at Court: Death brings out the worst in the justices.". Slate.
  3. ↑ Editorial Board (2015-01-27). "The Humane Death Penalty Charade". New York Times.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Glossip v. Gross" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 29, 2015.
  5. ↑ Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy (30 June 2015). "Supreme Court Allows Use of Controversial Sedative for Lethal Injection: What This Means for the Death Penalty". Yahoo Health.
Wikisource has original text related to this article:


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 5/22/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.