The NCSL Blog

02

By Lisa Soronen

In Bucklew v. Precythe, issued Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Missouri wasn’t required to execute Russell Bucklew by using a drug he claimed would cause him less pain due to his unusual medical condition.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday against inmate Russell Bucklew, who is on death row for a 1996 murder. (Missouri Department of Corrections/AP)Bucklew was sentenced to death for killing a neighbor who was sheltering his former girlfriend and her children after she broke up with Bucklew.

Cavernous hemangioma causes tumors to grow in Bucklew’s head, neck and throat. He claims that due to his disease, the sedative Missouri intends to use in its lethal injection protocol will cause him feelings of suffocation and excoriating pain for a longer time than the alternative drug he suggests. He claims Missouri’s protocol is unconstitutional as applied to him.  

The Eighth Amendment disallows “cruel and unusual punishment.” The Supreme Court held in Glossip v. Gross (2015) that a state’s refusal to alter its lethal injection protocol may violate the Eighth Amendment if an inmate identifies a “feasible, readily implemented” alternative procedure that would “significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain.”

Bucklew first argued that he didn’t have to identify an alternative drug because his challenge wasn’t facial (applicable to all prisoners sentenced to death) but instead was related only to the lethal injection protocol as applied to him.

Justice Neal Gorsuch, writing for the majority of the court, disagreed, noting that “Glossip expressly held that identifying an available alternative is ‘a requirement of all Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claims’ alleging cruel pain.”  

Bucklew ultimately identified nitrogen as an alternative drug. But the majority of the court rejected it for two reasons. First, Bucklew failed to demonstrate Missouri could execute him “relatively easily and reasonably quickly” using nitrogen.

Specifically, Bucklew “presented no evidence on essential questions like how nitrogen gas should be administered (using a gas chamber, a tent, a hood, a mask, or some other delivery device); in what concentration (pure nitrogen or some mixture of gases); how quickly and for how long it should be introduced; or how the state might ensure the safety of the execution team, including protecting them against the risk of gas leaks.” Second, according to the court, Missouri could legitimately refuse to switch drugs because nitrogen has never been used for an execution.

Even assuming nitrogen was a readily available alternative, the court concluded that Bucklew wasn’t able to show that using it would significantly reduce the substantial risk of severe pain.

While Bucklew pointed to several risks that could result from using Missouri’s plan that would not be present if nitrogen was used (including Bucklew having to lie flat and the IV being placed in one of his compromised veins), the court determined these risks were unsupported if not contradicted by evidence in the case.

The Court’s more liberal justices—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—dissented in this case.
 

Lisa Soronen is executive director of the State and Local Legal Center and a frequent contributor to the NCSL Blog on judicial issues.

Actions: E-mail | Permalink |

Subscribe to the NCSL Blog

Click on the RSS feed at left to add the NCSL Blog to your favorite RSS reader. 

About the NCSL Blog

This blog offers updates on the National Conference of State Legislatures' research and training, the latest on federalism and the state legislative institution, and posts about state legislators and legislative staff. The blog is edited by NCSL staff and written primarily by NCSL's experts on public policy and the state legislative institution.