The U.S. Supreme Court has unan­i­mous­ly ruled that death row inmates seek­ing to chal­lenge lethal injec­tion as a method of exe­cu­tion after they have exhaust­ed their reg­u­lar appeals may pur­sue the issue as a civ­il rights claim. Though the deci­sion in Hill v. McDonough did not answer the broad­er ques­tion regard­ing whether the chem­i­cals used in lethal injec­tions around the nation are uncon­sti­tu­tion­al because they may cause excru­ci­at­ing pain, it does per­mit inmates to chal­lenge lethal injec­tion using an Eighth Amendment claim.

The deci­sion involved Florida death row inmate Clarence Hill, who had exhaust­ed his avail­able appeals before using a civ­il rights claim to chal­lenge the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of Florida’s lethal injec­tion pro­to­col. Hill was strapped to a gur­ney with lines run­ning into his arms to deliv­er the lethal cock­tail when the Supreme Court inter­vened and blocked his January 2006 exe­cu­tion. Writing for the Court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that while Hill and oth­er death row inmates can now file spe­cial appeals, they will not be always enti­tled to delays in their exe­cu­tions.

Lethal injec­tion is the pri­ma­ry method of exe­cu­tion used in every state that has the death penal­ty except Nebraska, which uses the elec­tric chair. The U.S. Supreme Court has nev­er ruled on the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of a spe­cif­ic method of exe­cu­tion. (Associated Press, June 12, 2006) See U.S. Supreme Court and Methods of Execution.

Citation Guide