Glossip v. Gross Supreme Court Decision - June 29, 2015

On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of Glossip v. Gross. This decision addressed the contentious issue of whether the use of the drug midazolam in lethal injection protocols violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Background

The case arose from a challenge by death row inmates in Oklahoma, who argued that the use of midazolam as the first drug in a three-drug execution protocol could not reliably induce a deep, coma-like unconsciousness. This, they claimed, would result in severe pain during the administration of the subsequent drugs, thus constituting cruel and unusual punishment.

Midazolam, a sedative, had been increasingly used in lethal injections due to shortages of other drugs traditionally used in executions. The controversy surrounding its use intensified after several problematic executions where inmates appeared to suffer.

The Court’s Decision

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of midazolam did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. The Court held that the inmates failed to establish that the use of midazolam presented a substantial risk of severe pain. Furthermore, they did not identify a known and available alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce this risk.

Key Points from the Majority Opinion:

• Burden of Proof: The Court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the inmates to demonstrate that the method of execution posed a substantial risk of severe pain.
• Alternative Methods: The ruling underscored the necessity for inmates to propose a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce the risk of pain.
• Precedent: The decision relied on previous rulings, particularly the 2008 case Baze v. Rees, which upheld the constitutionality of a similar three-drug protocol.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote a dissenting opinion questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan, also dissented, criticizing the majority for what she viewed as a misapplication of the burden of proof and expressing concern over the reliability of midazolam.

Broader Implications

The ruling in Glossip v. Gross had significant implications for the future of capital punishment in the United States. It effectively allowed states to continue using midazolam in executions, despite ongoing debates about its efficacy and ethical considerations. The decision also highlighted the broader challenges faced by states in obtaining drugs for lethal injections, as pharmaceutical companies increasingly refuse to supply them for this purpose.

The case remains a pivotal moment in the ongoing national debate over the death penalty, its methods, and its moral and legal standing within the American justice system.