On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held (5 – 4) that Oklahoma inmates ​“failed to estab­lish a like­li­hood of suc­cess on the mer­its of their claim that the use of mida­zo­lam vio­lates the Eighth Amendment.” Three inmates on Oklahoma’s death row had chal­lenged the state’s use of mida­zo­lam as the first drug in a three-drug pro­to­col, say­ing that it ​“fails to ren­der a per­son insen­sate to pain.” In a nar­row deci­sion writ­ten by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court deferred to a District Court rul­ing uphold­ing the use of mida­zo­lam. Justice Alito said that, in order to pre­vail, the inmates would have had to iden­ti­fy a ​“known and avail­able alter­na­tive method” that has a low­er risk of pain. The deci­sion will allow states that use mida­zo­lam, includ­ing Oklahoma, to resume exe­cu­tions, though they can still con­sid­er alter­na­tives. In a sweep­ing dis­sent­ing opin­ion rais­ing deep con­cerns about the death penal­ty itself, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said, ​“I would ask for full brief­ing on a more basic question:

whether the death penal­ty vio­lates the Constitution.…Today’s admin­is­tra­tion of the death penal­ty involves three fun­da­men­tal con­sti­tu­tion­al defects: (1) seri­ous unre­li­a­bil­i­ty, (2) arbi­trari­ness in appli­ca­tion, and (3) uncon­scionably long delays that under­mine the death penalty’s peno­log­i­cal pur­pose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places with­in the United States have aban­doned its use.”

Dale Baich, one of the attor­neys for the Oklahoma inmates, react­ed to the Court’s rul­ing, stat­ing, ​“Today’s rul­ing, which allows depart­ments of cor­rec­tions to use mida­zo­lam in lethal injec­tion exe­cu­tions, con­tra­dicts the sci­en­tif­ic and med­ical under­stand­ing of the drug’s prop­er­ties. Because the Court declined to require that states fol­low sci­en­tif­ic guide­lines in deter­min­ing their lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures, states will be allowed to con­duct addi­tion­al human exper­i­men­ta­tion when they car­ry out exe­cu­tions by lethal injec­tion. Despite the Court’s unwill­ing­ness to step in on this impor­tant issue, and giv­en the sub­stan­tial risk of harm, lit­i­ga­tion sure­ly will con­tin­ue. We will con­tin­ue to work in the courts to hold the states account­able in order to try and pre­vent botched exe­cu­tions in the future.” 

DPIC has col­lect­ed and repost­ed some of the com­men­tary and analy­sis that has come out in the days and weeks since the deci­sion was handed down.

Editorials About Glossip v. Gross:

• The Los Angeles Times – Editorial: Clock is tick­ing on California’s lethal injection question

• The (CA) Press Democrat – Editorial: Thumbs up, thumbs down

• The Wilmington (DE) News-Journal – Editorial: No avoid­ing ques­tions on death penalty

• The Miami Herald – Editorial: Permission to execute

• The Palm Beach Post – Editorial: Better drug evi­dence need­ed before resuming executions

• The Chicago Sun-Times – Editorial: U.S. should fol­low Illinois, abol­ish death penalty

• The (MA) Republican – Supreme Court needs long look at cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment: Editorial

• (NH) Valley News – Editorial: Murder, Morality and the Death Penalty

• The Bergen (North Jersey) Record – Editorial: Capital punishment

• New York Times (EDITORIAL BLOG), Jesse Wegman, A Death the Supreme Court Should Remember

• The Charlotte Observer – Editorial: Put the death penal­ty on trial

• The (NC) News & Observer – Editorial: Lethal injec­tion rul­ing should bring review of death penalty’s legality

• Akron Beacon-Journal – Editorial: Duty to exe­cute with dignity

• (OH) Times Reporter – Editorial: Supreme Court upholds use of lethal injection drug

• (OH) Record-Courier – Editorial: OUR VIEW: RULING ON DEATH DRUG WON’T END DEBATE

• Toledo Blade – Editorial: Executing vig­i­lance. Given the expe­ri­ence of this state and oth­ers, Ohio should not use the drug mida­zo­lam for lethal injections

• (OK) Enid News & Eagle – Editorial: Death row doesn’t deserve cru­el, unusual punishment

• The Oklahoman – Editorial: Breyer dis­sent will help fuel anti-death penalty push

• Tulsa World – Editorial: Supreme Court: Oklahoma fol­low­ing con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­to­col in executions

• The (SC) Post and Courier – Editorial: Ultimate crime, ultimate penalty

• The Dallas Morning News – Editorial: Addressing the death penalty head-on

Opinion and Commentary About the Glossip v. Gross Decision:

• SCOTUSBlog – Deborah Denno, Symposium: ​“Groundhog Day” indeed

• SCOTUSBlog – Steven D. Schwinn, Symposium: The Wonderland rules for method-of-execution claims

• SCOTUSBlog – Kent Scheidegger, Symposium: A major set­back for the anti­de­mo­c­ra­t­ic war of attri­tion against the death penalty

• National Constitution Center – Lyle Denniston, Constitution Check: Is the end of the death penal­ty in sight?

• Washington Post – Commentary: Radley Balko, There’s noth­ing ​‘enlight­ened’ about exe­cut­ing the innocent

Austin Sarat, SCOTUS Doesn’t Care How You Kill a Man (Politico Magazine, June 29, 2015)


The Supreme Court just guar­an­teed that America will con­tin­ue its long-held tra­di­tion of botched exe­cu­tions. Today’s deci­sion in Glossip v Gross, uphold­ing the use of mida­zo­lam in lethal injec­tions, is in keep­ing with the court’s his­to­ry of tol­er­at­ing inhu­mane exe­cu­tion meth­ods. As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dis­sent, ​‘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.’ ” (Click for full arti­cle)

• Bloomberg Business – Commentary: Matt Stroud, Where Do the Death Penalty Abolitionists Go From Here?

• The Business Insider – Commentary: Christina Sterbenz, The Supreme Court is ignor­ing a huge wave in American politics

• The Chicago Tribune – Column: Bill Press, Time to Bury the Death Penalty

• The Clarion-Ledger – Column: Sid Salter, Ruling may sig­nal end of death penalty

• Dorf on Law – Commentary: Michael Dorf, Evolving Standards of Decency That Mark the Progress of Maturing Justices

• The Economist ​‘Democracy in America’ Blog – Commentary: E.B., Last gasps

• Gawker – Commentary: Hamilton Nolan, One Step on the Road to the End of the Death Penalty

• The Intercept – Commentary: Liliana Segura, WHAT JUSTICE BREYER’S DISSENT ON LETHAL INJECTION SHOWED ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY’S DEFENDERS

• Huffington Post – Commentary: Adam Banner, U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Stance on Death Penalty

• Huffington Post – Commentary: Brandon L. Garrett and Lee Kovarsky, Last Words for the Death Penalty

• The Marshall Project – Commentary: Garrett Felber, Justice Breyer and Malcolm X

• The Marshall Project – Commentary: Evan Mandery, What Was Justice Breyer Really Saying?

• Mother Jones – Commentary: Stephanie Mencimer, I Just Took the Controversial Drug Used for the Death Penalty. Here’s What It Was Like.

• The Nation – Commentary: Bruce Shapiro, The Good News Buried in the Supreme Court’s Lethal Injection Decision

• Slate – Opinion: Robert J. Smith, The End of the Death Penalty?

• Take Part – Column: David A. Love, Is America Close to Ending the Death Penalty? Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s dis­sent on a lethal injec­tion case puts the death penal­ty on trial.

• Tampa Tribune – Column: Joe Henderson, Sometimes juries get it wrong in death penal­ty cas­es, and then what?

• Townhall – Commentary: Matt Vespa, Here We Go Again: Is The Death Penalty Unconstitutional?

• The Week – Opinion: Michael Brendan Dougherty, What the Supreme Court missed about lethal injec­tion: It’s not just cru­el. It’s unusual.

• The London (ON) Free Press/​Post Media Network (Canada) – Column: Robin Baranyai, Convicted killers may as well be burned at stake

• The Kokomo (IN) Tribune – Column: Dave Bangert: Pick your death penal­ty poi­son, Indiana — or not

News Coverage of Glossip v. Gross:

• Associated Press – Kate Brumrack, In Supreme Court loss, death penal­ty foes see an opening

• Houston Chronicle – Allan Turner, Citing Texas cas­es, Supreme Court jus­tices ques­tion death penalty constitutionality

• Los Angeles Times – David G. Savage and Timothy M. Phelps, Supreme Court dis­senters sig­nal his­toric chal­lenge to death penalty

• NBC News — Pete Williams and Tracy Connor, Death Penalty Case Inflames Supreme Court Passions

• National Public Radio – Nina Totenberg, Lethal Injection Ruling Draws Out Justices’ Passionate Opinions

• New York Times – Manny Fernandez, States Snub Execution Drug Approved by Supreme Court

• Politico – Adam B. Lerner, Justice Stephen Breyer’s dis­sent: Death penal­ty may be unconstitutional

• Propublica – Annie Waldman, Justice Alito Defends Lethal Injection Expert Who Did His Research on Drugs​.com

• Reuters – Heide Brandes and Jon Herskovitz, Oklahoma to quick­ly resume exe­cu­tions after Supreme Court decision

• TIME – Josh Sanburn, Supreme Court Ruling Won’t Stop Search for Execution Drugs

• Washington Post – Mark Berman, What the Supreme Court’s deci­sion on lethal injec­tion means for exe­cu­tions in the U.S.

• Washington Post – Mark Berman, How states are respond­ing to the Supreme Court’s lethal injection decision

• The Arizona Capitol Times – Gary Grado, Court OKs drug use in exe­cu­tions, but lawyer says that could change

• The Oklahoman – Chris Casteel, Oklahoma attor­ney gen­er­al talks about recent state, U.S. Supreme Court decisions