_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 1 

Statement of BREYER, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 17–7855 (17A900) 

DOYLE LEE HAMM v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, 

COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
 

[February 22, 2018]
 

The motion for leave to file documents under seal with 

redacted copies for the public record is granted. The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented 

to JUSTICE THOMAS and by him referred to the Court is

denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The

order heretofore entered by JUSTICE THOMAS is vacated.

 JUSTICE BREYER, respecting the denial of the application for stay and the denial of certiorari. 

This case reflects the special circumstances of trying to

execute a person who has been on death row for 30 years 

and has cancer. As I have previously written, rather than

develop a “constitutional jurisprudence that focuses upon 

the special circumstances of the aged,” I would reconsider 

the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. Dunn v. 

Madison, 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (BREYER, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3). 
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 1 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 17–7855 (17A900) 

DOYLE LEE HAMM v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, 

COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
 

[February 22, 2018]

 JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR 

joins, dissenting from the denial of the application for stay

and the denial of certiorari. 

Petitioner Doyle Lee Hamm is a 61-year-old Alabama

inmate whose medical conditions leave him in a vulnerable physical state. An independent physician, appointed 

by the District Court, determined that “no veins in either

[of his arms] would be readily accessible” for the placement of the two intravenous catheters Alabama’s lethalinjection execution protocol requires. Hamm v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, No. 18–10636 

(CA11, Feb. 22, 2018), p. 5. Nonetheless, a panel of the 

Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the District Court’s denial 

of Hamm’s request for a preliminary injunction barring

intravenous lethal injection. The District Court and Eleventh Circuit erroneously premised their rejection of 

Hamm’s claims on novel understandings about how 

Hamm’s execution would be carried out—understandings

gleaned from a stipulation and an affidavit to which

Hamm was given no opportunity to respond. An adversarial process should have tested the risk of “serious illness

and needless suffering,” Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. ___, 

___ (2015) (slip op., at 12) (quoting Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 
 

2 HAMM v. DUNN 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

35, 50 (2008)), presented by the insertion of intravenous 

catheters into Hamm’s leg or central veins. That method 

of execution, although it fits within the compass of the 

State’s execution protocol, has, by all accounts before us,

never been tried before in Alabama. I therefore respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.