The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of execution to Clarence Hill in Florida just minutes before his execution was to take place on January 24. The next day, the Court made the stay permanent until they could hear Hill’s challenge to the lethal injection procedures in Florida. Hill raised a civil rights claim (section 1983) stating that the chemicals used in lethal injection could inflict severe and unnecessary pain. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit rejected his use of the civil rights law and required that his claim be considered as part of his regular (habeas corpus) death penalty appeal. They then rejected the claim.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari and has ordered that briefings be completed by April 17. In an earlier case, Nelson v. Campbell (2004), challenging parts of the lethal injection procedures in Alabama, the Court allowed the inmate to proceed with his civil rights claim.

The two questions the Court agreed to hear are:

“1. Whether a complaint brought under 42 USC Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the chemicals utilized for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 USC Sec. 2254?

“2. Whether, under this Court’s decision in Nelson, a challenge to a particular protocol the State plans to use during the execution process constitutes a cognizable claim under 42 USC Sec. 1983?”

The case is Hill v. Crosby, No. 05-8794. (See Associated Press; Lyle Denniston on SCOTUSBLOG, Jan. 25, 2006). See also Methods of Execution and Supreme Court.