1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

NANCE v. WARD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL

.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 21–439. Argued April 25, 2022—Decided June 23, 2022
A prisoner who challenges a State’s proposed method of execution under

the Eighth Amendment must identify a readily available alternative method that would significantly reduce the risk of severe pain. If the prisoner proposes a method alread y authorized under state law, the Court has held that his claim can go forward under 42 U. S. C. §1983, rather than in habeas. See Nelson v. Campbell , 541 U. S. 637, 644– 647. But the prisoner is not confined to proposing a method already authorized under state law; he ma y ask for a method used in other States. See Bucklew v. Precythe , 587 U. S. ___, ___. The question pre

sented is whether a prisoner wh o does so may still proceed under §1983.

Petitioner Michael Nance brought suit under §1983 to enjoin Geor

gia from using lethal injection to ca rry out his execution. Lethal injec

tion is the only method of executio n that Georgia law now authorizes. Nance alleges that applying that method to him would create a sub

stantial risk of severe pain. As an alternative to lethal injection, Nance proposes death by firing sq uad—a method currently approved by four other States. The District Court dismissed Nance’s §1983 suit as untimely. The Eleventh Circuit rejected it for a different reason: that Nance should have advanced his method-of-execution claim by way of a habeas petition rather than a §1983 suit. A habeas petition, that court stated, is appropriate wh en a prisoner seeks to invalidate his death sentence. And the Eleven th Circuit thought that was what Nance was doing. It asserted that Georgia law—which again, only au

thorizes execution by lethal injection—had to be taken as “fixed.” 981 F. 3d 1201, 1211. Under that “fixed” law, the court said, enjoining Georgia from executing Na nce by lethal injection would mean that he2 NANCE v. WARD

Syllabus

could not be executed at all. The court therefore “rec onstrued” Nance’s §1983 complaint as a habeas petition. Id. , at 1203. Having done so, the court then dismissed Nance’s pe tition as “second or successive,” because he had previously sought federal habeas relief. 28 U. S. C. §2244(b).
Held : Section 1983 remains an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner’s

method-of-execution claim where, as here, the prisoner proposes an al

ternative method not authorized by th e State’s death-penalty statute.

Both §1983 and the federal habeas statute enable a prisoner to com

plain of “unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials.” Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U. S. 477, 480. A prisoner may generally sue under §1983, unless his claim falls into that statute’s “implicit excep

tion” for actions that lie “within the core of habeas corpus.” Wilkinson

v. Dotson , 544 U. S. 74, 79. When a prisoner seeks relief that would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” he comes within the core and must proceed in habeas. Heck , 512 U. S., at 487.

The Court has twice held that prisoners could bring method-ofexecution claims under §1983. See Nelson , 541 U. S., at 644–647; Hill

v. McDonough , 547 U. S. 573, 580–583. Although these cases predated the Court’s requirement th at prisoners identify alternative methods of execution, each prisoner had still said enough to leave the Court con

vinced that alternatives to the cha llenged procedures were available. See Nelson , 541 U. S., at 646; Hill , 547 U. S., at 580–581. Because alternatives were available, the prisoners’ challenges would not “ nec

essarily prevent [the State] from carryi ng out [their] execution[s].” Nelson , 541 U. S., at 647 (emphasis in original); see Hill , 547 U. S., at 583. That made §1983 a proper vehicle.

In Nelson and Hill , the Court observed that using a different method required only a change in an agency ’s uncodified protocol. Here, Geor

gia would have to change its statute to carry out Nance’s execution by firing squad. Except for that fact, this case would even more clearly than Nelson and Hill be fit for §1983. Since those cases, the Court has required a prisoner bringing a me thod-of-execution claim to propose an alternative way of carrying out his death sentence. Thus, an order granting the prisoner relief does not, as required for habeas, “ neces

sarily prevent” the State from implemen ting the execution. Nelson

, 541 U. S., at 647 (emphasis in original). Rather, the order gives the State a pathway forward.

That remains true even where, as here, the proposed alternative is one unauthorized by pr esent state law. Nance’s requested relief still places his execution in Georgia’s cont rol. If Georgia wants to carry out the death sentence, it can enact legislation approving what a court has found to be a fairly easy-to-employ me thod of execution. Although that3 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Syllabus

may take more time and effort than changing an agency protocol, Hill explained that the “incidental delay” involved in changing a procedure is irrelevant to the vehicle questi on—which focuses on whether the re

quested relief would “necessarily” in validate the death sentence. 547 U. S., at 583. And anyway, Georgia has given no reason to think that passing new legislation would be a substantial impediment.

The Court of Appeals could reach the contrary conclusion only by wrongly treating Georgia’s statute as immutable. In its view, granting Nance relief would necessarily imply the invalidity of his death sen

tence because Georgia law must be taken as “fixed.” 981 F. 3d, at 1211. But one of the “main aims” of §1983 is to “override”—and thus compel change of—state laws when necessary to vindicate federal constitu

tional rights. Monroe v. Pape , 365 U. S. 167, 173. Indeed, courts not uncommonly entertain prisoner suits under §1983 that may, if success

ful, require changing state law.

Under the contrary approach, the federal vehicle for bringing a fed

eral method-of-execution claim would depend on the vagaries of state law. Consider how Nance’s claim would fare in different States. In Georgia (and any other State with lethal injection as the sole author

ized method), he would have to bring his claim in a habeas petition. But in States authorizing other me thods when a court holds injection unlawful, he could file a §1983 suit. It would be strange to read state

by-state discrepancies into the Court’s understanding of how §1983 and the habeas statute apply to federa l constitutional claims. That is especially so because the use of the vehicles can lead to different out

comes: An inmate in one State coul d end up getting his requested re

lief, while an inmate in another might have his case thrown out.

The approach of the Court of Appe als raises one last problem: It threatens to undo the commitment this Court made in Bucklew . The Court there told prisoners they coul d identify an alternative method not “presently authorized” by the executing State’s law. 587 U. S., at ___. But under the approach of the Court of Appeals, a prisoner who presents an out-of-state alternativ e is relegated to habeas—and once there, he will almost inevitably collide with the second-or-successive bar. That result, precluding claims like Nance’s, would turn Bucklew into a sham.

Finally, recognizing that §1983 is a good vehicle for a claim like Nance’s does not countenance “last-mi nute” claims to forestall an exe

cution. Id ., at ___. Courts must consider delay in deciding whether to grant a stay of execution, and outs ide the stay context, courts have tools to streamline §1983 actions an d protect a sentence’s timely en

forcement. Pp. 5–13. 981 F. 3d 1201, reversed and remanded.

K

AGAN , J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which R OBERTS , C. J., and B REYER , S OTOMAYOR , and K AVANAUGH , JJ., joined. B ARRETT , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which T HOMAS , A LITO , and G ORSUCH , JJ., joined._________________

_________________ 1 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other form al errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 21–439

MICHAEL NANCE, PETITIONER v. TIMOTHY C.

WARD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPART

MENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL

.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 23, 2022]

J USTICE K AGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. In several recent decisions, this Court has set out rules for challenging a State’s prop osed method of execution un

der the Eighth Amendment. To prevail on such a claim, a prisoner must identify a re adily available alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce the risk of severe pain. In doing so, the prisoner is not confined to proposing a method authorized by the executing State’s law; he may instead ask for a method used in other States. See Bucklew v. Precythe , 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 19). This case concerns the procedural vehicle appropriate for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim. We have held that such a claim can go forward under 42 U. S. C. §1983, rather than in habeas, when the alternative method proposed is already authorized under state law. See Nelson v. Camp

bell , 541 U. S. 637, 644–647 (2004). Here, the prisoner has identified an alternative method that is not so authorized. The question presented is whether §1983 is still a proper vehicle. We hold that it is.2 NANCE v. WARD

Opinion of the Court

I A States choosing to impose capital punishment have over time sought out “more humane way[s] to carry out death sentences.” Glossip v. Gross , 576 U. S. 863, 868 (2015). In the 27 States with the death penalty, lethal injection is by far the most common method of execution. See ibid. Fif

teen States, including Georgia, authorize only the use of le

thal injection. 1 Nine States authorize lethal injection plus one or more other specified methods; of those (to use an ex

ample relevant here), four approve the firing squad. 2 And three States provide that if their authorized methods (in

cluding lethal injection) are found unconstitutional, then they may carry out a death sent ence by any constitutional

means. 3 A death row inmate may attempt to show that a State’s planned method of execution, eith er on its face or as applied to him, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on

——————

1 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13–757(A) (2020); Ga. Code Ann. §17–10–38(a) (2020); Idaho Code Ann. §19–2716 (2017); Ind. Code §35–38–6–1(a) (2021); Kan. Stat. Ann. §22–4001(a) (2007); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §15:569(B) (West 2022); Mont. Code Ann. §46–19–103(3) (2021); Neb. Rev. Stat. §83–964 (2020 Cum. Supp.); Nev. Rev. Stat. §176.355(1) (2017); N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §15–188 (2021); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2949.22(A) (Lexis 2021); Ore. Rev. Stat. §137.473(1) (2021); 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. §4304(a) (2015 Special Edition); S. D. Codified Laws §23A–27A–32 (2016); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. §43.14(a) (Vernon 2018).

2 Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolin a, and Utah authorize the fir

ing squad among other methods of execution. H. B. 1479, 2022 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss.); Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, §1014 (2020 Supp.); S. C. Code Ann. §24–3–530 (2021 Cum. Supp.); Utah Code §77–18–113 (2021). The rest of the States in this bucket most commonly authorize electrocution or lethal gas. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5–4–617(a), (l) (Supp. 2021); Cal. Penal Code Ann. §3604(a) (West Supp. 2022); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§431.220(1)(a), 431.223 (Lexis 2021); Mo. Rev. Stat. §546.720(1) (2016); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §7–13–904 (2021).

3 Ala. Code §15–18–82.1(c) (2018); Fla. Stat. §922.105(3) (2018); Tenn. Code Ann. §40–23–114(d) (2018).3 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Opinion of the Court
“cruel and unusual” punishment. To succeed on that claim, the Court held in Glossip , he must satisfy two require

ments. First, he must establish that the State’s method of execution presents a “substant ial risk of serious harm”— severe pain over and above death itself. Id. , at 877. Second, and more relevant here, he “must identify an alternative [method] that is feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduce[s]” the risk of harm involved. Ibid. (in

ternal quotation marks omitted). Only through a “compar

ative exercise,” we have explained, can a judge “decide whether the State has cruelly ‘superadded’ pain to the pun

ishment of death.” Bucklew , 587 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15). In identifying an alternative method, the Court in Buck

lew held, an inmate is “not limited to choosing among those presently authorized by a particular State’s law.” Id. , at ___ (slip op., at 19). The prisoner may, for example, “point to a well-established protocol in ano ther State as a potentially viable option.” Ibid. The Eighth Amendment, Bucklew ex

plained, “is the supreme law of the land, and the compara

tive assessment it requires can’t be controlled by the State’s choice of which methods to authorize.” Id. , at ___ (slip op., at 20); see Arthur v. Dunn , 580 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 10) (S OTOMAYOR , J., dissenting from denial of certi

orari). In addition, Bucklew stated, allowing an inmate to propose a method not authorized by the State keeps his “burden” within reasonable bounds. 587 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19). Because the inmate can look beyond the State’s current law, we saw “little likelihood” that he would “be un

able to identify an available alternative.” Id.

, at ___ (slip op., at 20); see id. , at ___ (slip op., at 2) (K AVANAUGH , J., concurring).

B While trying to flee a bank robbery, petitioner Michael4 NANCE v. WARD

Opinion of the Court
Nance shot and killed a byst ander. A Georgia jury con

victed Nance of murder, and the trial court sentenced him to death. Nance challenged his conviction and sentence— first on direct appeal, next in state collateral proceedings, and finally in federal habeas—but without success. Nance later brought suit under §1983 to enjoin Georgia from using lethal injection to carry out his death sentence. As stated above, lethal injection is the only method of exe

cution Georgia law now authorizes. See supra , at 2. 4 In his complaint, Nance alleges that applying that method to him would create a substantial risk of severe pain. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 86a. According to Nance, his veins are “se

verely compromised and unsuitable for sustained intrave

nous access.” Ibid. They are, Nance says, likely to “blow” during the execution, “leading to the leakage of the lethal injection drug into the surrounding tissue” and thereby causing “intense pain and burning.” Ibid. On top of that, Nance asserts, his longtime use of a prescription drug for back pain creates a risk that the sedative used in the State’s lethal injection protocol will fail to “render him unconscious and insensate.” Ibid. Nance proposes, as a “readily availa

ble alternative” method of ex ecution, “death by firing squad.” Ibid. As noted earlier, four other States have ap

proved that method. See supra , at 2, and n. 2. Use of a firing squad, Nance says, will lead to “swift and virtually painless” death. App. to Pet. for Cert. 102a. And imple

menting that method, he says, would be simple: Georgia has enough qualified personnel and could borrow specific protocols from another State. Ibid. After the District Court dismissed Nance’s suit as un

timely, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit re

jected it for a different reas on—that Nance had used the

——————

4 See Ga. Code Ann. §17–10–38(a) (“All persons who have been con

victed of a capital offense and have had imposed upon them a sentence of death shall suffer such punish ment by lethal injection”).5 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Opinion of the Court
wrong procedural vehicle. In the panel majority’s view, Nance should have brought his method-of-execution claim by way of a habeas petition rather than a §1983 suit. A habeas petition, the court stated, is appropriate when a prisoner seeks to “invalidate” a death sentence. 981 F. 3d 1201, 1209 (2020). And the court thought that was what Nance was doing: The injunction he requested, preventing the use of lethal injection, “necessarily impl[ies] the inva

lidity of his death sentence.” Id. , at 1203. That was so, the court reasoned, because Georgia law “must [be taken] as fixed”—and under that “fixed” law, if Nance could not be executed by lethal injection, th en he could not be executed at all. Id. , at 1211. The court therefore “reconstrued” Nance’s complaint as a habeas petition. Id. , at 1203. And having done so, the court dismissed the petition as “second or successive” because Nance had already sought federal habeas relief. 28 U. S. C. §2244(b); see supra , at 4. Judge Martin dissented, arguing that Nance could proceed under §1983. In her view, Nance was not challenging his death sentence; all he wanted was an order telling “the State to execute him by a different method.” 981 F. 3d

, at 1215. The Eleventh Circuit denied Nance’s petition for rehearing en banc over the dissent of thr ee judges. See 994 F. 3d 1335 (2021). We granted certiorari, 595 U. S. ___ (2022), and now re

verse.
II This Court has often considered, when evaluating state prisoners’ constitutional claims, the dividing line between §1983 and the federal habeas statute. Each law enables a prisoner to complain of “unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials.” Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U. S. 477, 480 (1994). But there the resemblance stops. The habeas statute contains procedural requirements (like the second

-6 NANCE v. WARD

Opinion of the Court or-successive rule) nowhere found in §1983; the former stat

ute may therefore require dismissal of a claim when the lat

ter statute would not. See id. , at 480–481. Still more per

tinent here, the scope of the two laws also differs. Section 1983 broadly authorizes suit against state officials for the “deprivation of any rights” secured by the Constitution. Read literally, that language would apply to all of a pris

oner’s constitutional claims, thus swamping the habeas statute’s coverage of claims that the prisoner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U. S. C. §2254(a); see Wilkinson v. Dotson , 544 U. S. 74, 78–79 (2005). So we have not read §1983 literally in the prisoner context. To the con

trary, we have insisted that §1983 contains an “implicit ex

ception” for actions that lie “within the core of habeas cor

pus.” Id. , at 79. In defining that core, this Court has focused on whether a claim challenges the validity of a conviction or sentence. See Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U. S. 475, 489 (1973). The simplest cases arise when an inmate, alleging a flaw in his conviction or sentence, seeks “immediate or speedier re

lease” from prison. Heck , 512 U. S., at 481. The analogue in the capital punishment context, also clear-cut, is when an inmate seeks to overturn his death sentence, thus pre

venting the State from executing him. Slightly less obvious, this Court has held that an inmate must proceed in habeas when the relief he seeks would “necessarily imply the inva

lidity of his conviction or sentence.” Id. , at 487 (barring §1983 suits for money damages when prevailing would im

ply a conviction was wrongful). In doing so, though, we have underscored that the implication must be “ neces

sar[y]

. ” Wilkinson, 544 U. S., at 81 (emphasis in original);

see Nelson , 541 U. S., at 647. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Court has held that a prison-conditions claim may be brought as a §1983 suit. See Preiser , 411 U. S., at 498–499. Such a suit—for example, challenging the ade

quacy of a prison’s medical care—does not go to the validity7 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Opinion of the Court
of a conviction or sentence, and thus falls outside habeas’s

core. In Nelson v. Campbell and Hill v. McDonough , this Court held two method-of-execution claims to fall on the §1983 side of the divide. See Nelson , 541 U. S., at 644–647; Hill

, 547 U. S. 573, 580–583 (2006). Both cases involved chal

lenges to a State’s lethal inje ction protocol—the first to the use of a “cut-down” procedure to access the prisoner’s veins, the second to a particular three-drug sequence. The cases predated our requirement that prisoners identify alterna

tive methods, but each prisoner had said enough to leave the Court convinced that alternatives to the challenged pro

cedures were available. See Nelson , 541 U. S., at 646; Hill

, 547 U. S., at 580–581. And that made the difference in both cases. A claim should go to habeas, the Court held, only if granting the prisoner relief “would necessarily prevent [the State] from carrying out its execution.” Nelson , 541 U. S., at 647 (emphasis in original); see Hill , 547 U. S., at 583. 5 In neither case would it have done so. Each prisoner had asked only for a change in implementing the death penalty, and an order granting that relief would not prevent the State from executing him. So the claims could proceed un

der §1983. Both Nelson and Hill , though, reserved the question at issue here: whether the result should be different when a State’s death-penalty statute does not authorize the alter

native method of execution. See Nelson , 541 U. S., at 645; Hill , 547 U. S., at 580. In each case, the Court observed that using a different method required no change in the State’s statute, but only a c hange in an agency’s uncodified

——————

5 In both cases, the Court made clea r that its formulation (again, would granting relief necessarily prevent the execution) merely adapted to the capital punishment context the question the Court had formerly asked in choosing between §1983 and habeas: Would granting relief necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence? See Nelson , 541 U. S., at 646; Hill , 547 U. S., at 583; supra , at 6.8 NANCE v. WARD

Opinion of the Court
protocols. Here, all parties agree that Georgia would have to change its statute to carry out Nance’s execution by means of a firing squad. They dispute whether that fact switches Nance’s claim to the habeas track. Except for the Georgia statute, this case would even more clearly than Nelson and Hill be fit for §1983. Since thosetwo cases, we have compelled a prisoner bringing a methodof-execution claim to propose an alternative way for the State to carry out his death sentence. He must, we have said, present a “proposal” that is “sufficiently detailed” to show that an alternative method is both “feasible” and “readily implemented.” Bucklew

, 587 U. S.

, at ___ (slip op., at 21); see supra , at 3. In other words, he must make the case that the State really can put him to death, though in a different way than it plans. The substance of the claim, now more than ever, thus points toward §1983. The prisoner is not challenging the death sentence itself; he is taking the validity of that sentence as a given. And he is providing the State with a veritable blueprint for carrying the death sen

tence out. If the inmate obtains his requested relief, it is because he has persuaded a court that the State could read

ily use his proposal to execute him. The court’s order there

fore does not, as required for habeas, “ necessarily prevent” the State from carrying out its execution. Nelson , 541 U. S., at 647 (emphasis in original). Rather, the order gives the State a pathway forward. That remains true, we hold today, even if the alternative route necessitates a change in state law. Nance’s requested relief still places his execution in Georgia’s control. Assum

ing it wants to carry out the death sentence, the State can enact legislation approving what a court has found to be a fairly easy-to-employ method of execution. To be sure, amending a statute may require some more time and effort than changing an agency protocol, of the sort involved in Nelson and Hill . But in Hill , we explained that the “inci

dental delay” involved in changing a procedure—which9 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Opinion of the Court even when uncodified may take some real work 6 —is not rel

evant to the vehicle question. 547 U. S., at 583. Instead, that inquiry (as described earlier) focuses on whether the requested relief would “necessar ily” invalidate, or foreclose the State from implementing, the death sentence. Ibid. ; see supra , at 6. And anyway, Georgia has given us no reason to think that the amendment process would be a substan

tial impediment. The State has legislated changes to its execution method several time s before. See Dept. of Cor

rections, Office of Planning and Analysis, A History of the Death Penalty in Georgia: Executions by Year 1924–2014 (Jan. 2015) (describing how Georgia moved from hanging to electrocution to lethal injecti on). Other States have regu

larly done the same, often in an effort to make executions more humane. See S. Banner, The Death Penalty: An American History 296–297 (2002); see supra , at 2. That Nance’s claim would require such action does not turn it from one contesting a method of execution into one disput

ing the underlying death sentence. The Court of Appeals could reach the contrary conclusion only by wrongly treating Geor gia’s statute as immutable. Recall the court’s reasoning: Granting Nance relief would “necessarily imply[] the invalidity” of his death sentence be

cause Georgia law (presumably both statutes and regula

tions) “must [be taken] as fixed.” 981 F. 3d, at 1210–1211;

see supra , at 5; post , at 3–4 (B ARRETT , J., dissenting) (agree

ing that we must “take state law as we find it”). But why must it be so taken—when as a matter of fact Georgia could change its law and execute Nance? And when Nance ac

cepts the validity of the State’s taking that course? The Court of Appeals posited that “it is not [a federal court’s] place to entertain complaints under section 1983” that

——————

6 In a recent case, Texas described to this Court the complexity of changing uncodified execution protocol s, given the number of state actors who need to reach agreement. See Re spondents’ Rule 32.3 Material in Ramirez v. Collier , O. T. 2021, No. 21–5592, p. 14a.10 NANCE v. WARD

Opinion of the Court
would compel a State to change its capital punishment law. 981 F. 3d, at 1211; see post , at 3. Except that sometimes it is. One of the “main aims” of §1983 is to “override”—and thus compel change of—state laws when necessary to vin

dicate federal constitutional rights. Monroe v. Pape , 365 U. S. 167, 173 (1961); see Zinermon v. Burch , 494 U. S. 113, 124 (1990). Or said otherwise, the ordinary and expected outcome of many a meritorious §1983 suit is to declare un

enforceable (whether on its face or as applied) a state stat

ute as currently written. See, e.g. , Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid , 594 U. S. ___ (2021). And in turn, the unsurprising effect of such a judgment may be to send state legislators back to the drawing board. See, e.g. , Kolender v. Lawson

, 461 U. S. 352, 358 (1983). A prisoner, no less than any other §1983 litigant, can bring a suit of that ilk—can seek relief that would preclude a State from achieving some re

sult unless and until it amends a statute. And indeed, courts not uncommonly entertain prisoner suits under §1983 that may, if successful, require changing state law. As noted earlier, the classic prisoner §1983 suit is one challenging prison conditions—say, overcrowding or inadequate medical care. See supra , at 6–7. Those suits can be brought under §1983 because—just like this one— they attack not the validity of a conviction or sentence, but only a way of implementing the sentence. (They concern, in other words, how the prescribed incarceration is being car

ried out.) And the suits do not get diverted into habeas if, as sometimes is true, a judgme nt for the inmate would re

quire a new statutory appropriation for the prison—to hire more doctors, for example. See, e.g. , Stafford v. Carter , No. 1:17–cv–00289 (SD Ind.), ECF Docs. 268, 282. Similarly, no one would think an action of that kind should go to habeas if the prison policy challenged (say, each facility’s maximum population) were specified in a statute or regulation. Or consider another kind of prisoner §1983 suit this Court has recently considered—one by a death row inmate seeking to11 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Opinion of the Court
compel the State to open the execution chamber to his spir

itual advisor. See Dunn v. Ray , 586 U. S. ___ (2019); Mur

phy v. Collier , 587 U. S. ___ (2019); Gutierrez v. Saenz , 592 U. S. ___ (2021); Ramirezv. Collier , 595 U. S. ___ (2022). Here too, the claim belongs in §1983 because—just like this one—it challenges not the validity of a death sentence, but only the State’s mode of carrying it out. And again, we can

not think it would matter if a State codified its no-spiritual

advisor protocol in a regulation. The State, assuming it lost the suit, would then have to modify its law to go forward with the execution. But the nature of the suit would still be the same. The complaint would still ask to adjust only a matter of implementation, so it still could be filed under §1983. Under the contrary approach, the federal vehicle for bringing a federal claim—and with that, the viability of the claim—would depend on the vagaries of state law. Consider how Nance’s own method-of-execution claim would fare in different States. In Georgia (and any other State with le

thal injection as the sole authorized method), he would have to bring his claim in a habeas petition. But in some other States primarily using lethal injection, he could file a §1983 suit—because their statutes include back-up plans for when a court holds injection unconstitutional. See supra , at 2. Oklahoma’s statute, for example, provides in that event for several alternative methods, including a firing squad. See Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, §§1014(B)–(D). And Alabama’s statute, in addition to listing alternat ives, provides for execution “by any constitutional method.” Ala. Code §15–18–82.1(c). Similar issues of non-uniformity could arise when inmates challenge, as in Nelson and Hill , specific ways of carrying out a lethal injection. See supra , at 7. That is because some States have codified injection protocols in their statutes or regulations, while others (like Georgia) have not. Compare,
e.g. , Ark. Code Ann. §§5–4–617(c)–(f ) with, e.g. , Ga. Code Ann. §17–10–38(a). It would be strange to read such state

-12 NANCE v. WARD

Opinion of the Court by-state discrepancies into our understanding of how §1983 and the habeas statute apply to federal constitutional claims. And that is especially so because the use of those vehicles can lead to different outcomes: An inmate in one State could end up getting his requested relief, while a sim

ilarly situated inmate in another would have his suit thrown out. We cannot agree with the dissent that such a disparity would be “unremarkable.” Post

, at 3. Its ac

ceptance would mean that the Eighth Amendment is en

forceable in federal court in one State, but not in another. Again, this case tells the ta le: Having reconstrued Nance’s complaint as a habeas petition, the court below dismissed it as second or successive—a bar existing in habeas alone. See

supra , at 5–6. That part of the circuit court’s opinion raises one last problem, because it threatens to undo the commitment this Court made in Bucklew . See post , at 4 (acknowledging the point, though finding it irrele vant). Recall that the Court there told inmates they could identify an alternative method of execution not “presently authorized” by the exe

cuting State’s law. 587 U. S ., at ___ (slip op., at 19); see

supra , at 3. That option would ensure state law does not “control[ ]” the Eighth Amendment inquiry; and it would keep manageable the inmate’s “burden” to identify an alter

native. 587 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 19–20). Under the circuit court’s approach, however, that option is no option at all. Once an inmate presents an out-of-state alternative, he is relegated to habeas. And on ce he is in habeas, he will (according to the circuit court) almost inevitably collide with the second-or-successive bar (because a method-of-ex

ecution claim typically postdates a first habeas petition by many years). We do not here decide whether that view of the second-or-successive bar is correct. But the two aspects of the circuit court’s ruling, when taken together, turn Bucklew into a sham. On the Eleventh Circuit’s view, Geor

-13 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Opinion of the Court gia law effectively prevents an inmate like Nance from put

ting forward an out-of-state alternative. And Georgia law thereby precludes the kind of method-of-execution claim this Court told prisoners they could bring. One last point from Bucklew —this one about “dilatory” tactics—bears repeating here. Id. , at ___ (slip op., at 30). In recognizing that §1983 is a good vehicle for a claim like Nance’s, we do not for a mo ment countenance “last-minute” claims relied on to forestall an execution. Ibid. “Courts should police carefully against attempts to use [method-of

execution] challenges as tool s to interpose unjustified de

lay.” Ibid. In deciding whether to grant a stay of execution, courts must consider whether such a challenge “could have been brought earlier” or otherwise reflects a prisoner’s “at

tempt at manipulation.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). And outside the stay context, courts have a vari

ety of tools—including the “substantive [and] procedural limitations” that the Prison Litigation Reform Act im

poses—to streamline §1983 actions and protect “the timely enforcement of a sentence.” Nelson , 541 U. S., at 650 (list

ing PLRA limitations); Bucklew , 587 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 29). Finally, all §1983 suits must be brought within a State’s statute of limitations for personal-injury actions. See Wallace v. Kato , 549 U. S. 384, 387 (2007). Here, the District Court held Nance’s suit untimely under that limi

tations period. See No. 20–cv–00107 (ND Ga., Mar. 13, 2020), ECF Doc. 26, p. 12; supra, at 4. The Eleventh Circuit did not review that holding because it instead reconstrued the action as a habeas petition. Now that we have held that reconstruction unjustified, the court on remand can address the timeliness question, as well as any others that remain.

* * * For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings co nsistent with this opinion.14 NANCE v. WARD

Opinion of the Court

It is so ordered._________________

_________________ 1 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

B ARRETT , J., dissenting


## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 21–439

MICHAEL NANCE, PETITIONER v. TIMOTHY C.

WARD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPART

MENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL

.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 23, 2022]

J USTICE B ARRETT , with whom J USTICE T HOMAS , J USTICE A LITO , and J USTICE G ORSUCH join, dissenting. An inmate must bring a method-of-execution challenge in a federal habeas application, rather than under 42 U. S. C. §1983, if “a grant of relief to the inmate would necessarily bar the execution.” Hill v. McDonough , 547 U. S. 573, 583 (2006). Under this criterion, Michael Nance must proceed in habeas because a judgment in his favor would “neces

sarily bar” the State from executing him. Ibid. Nance asked the District Court to “enj oin the Defendants from pro

ceeding with [his] execution . . . by a lethal injection,” claim

ing that the use of such method would violate the Eighth Amendment as applied to him. App. to Pet. for Cert. 103a– 104a. But lethal injection is the only method of execution authorized under Georgia law. See Ga. Code Ann. §17–10– 38(a) (2020). Thus, if Nance is successful, the defendants in this case—the commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections and the warden—will be powerless to carry out his sentence. That makes habeas the right vehicle for Nance’s Eighth Amendment challenge. The Court sees things differently. True, Nance is arguing that the Eighth Amendment renders his sentence invalid under current Georgia law. But the Court points out that2 NANCE v. WARD

B ARRETT , J., dissenting
the law could change: The legislature could authorize exe

cution by firing squad, the al ternative method that Nance has proposed. In fact, the Cou rt says that Nance’s proposal offers Georgia a “veritable blue print for carrying the death sentence out.” Ante , at 8. So an order in Nance’s favor would not “necessarily bar” th e State from ever executing Nance, in the Court’s view. Instead, the order would “giv[e] the State a pathway forward” if the legislature chooses to pursue the amendment process. Ibid. The Court is looking too far down the road. In my view, the consequence of the relief that a prisoner seeks depends on state law as it currently exists . And under existing state law, there is no question that Nance’s challenge necessarily implies the invalidity of his lethal injection sentence: He seeks to prevent the State from executing him in the only way it lawfully can. In this respect, Nance’s method-of-execution challenge differs from those brought in Nelson v. Campbell , 541 U. S. 637 (2004), and Hill , 547 U. S. 573. In Nelson , the inmate challenged the use of a “cut-down” procedure to access his veins. 541 U. S., at 640–642. We held that the suit sounded in §1983 because it would not “ necessarily prevent Alabama from carrying out its execution.” Id., at 647. We reasoned that, though venous access was an indispensable prerequi

site to lethal injection, “a particular means of gaining such access” was not. Id., at 645. Notably, “[n]o Alabama statute require[d] use of the cut-down,” and the State did not put forward any “duly-promulgated regulations to the con

trary.” Id., at 646. So even a successful challenge on these grounds “would have allowed the State to proceed with the execution as scheduled.” Ibid. The same was true in Hill , which involved an inmate’s challenge to Florida’s three-drug protocol. 547 U. S., at 578. We held that the inmate could proceed under §1983 because his “action if successful would not necessarily prevent the State from executing him by lethal injection.” Id., at 580.3 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

B ARRETT , J., dissenting
We emphasized that the comp laint did “not challenge the lethal injection sentence as a general matter” but instead only “the anticipated protocol.” Ibid. As in Nelson , we stressed that Florida law did “not require the department of corrections to use the challenged procedure.” 547 U. S., at 580. The State was “free to use an alternative lethal in

jection procedure,” and so we explained that “[u]nder these circumstances a grant of injunctive relief could not be seen as barring the execution of Hill’s sentence.” Id., at 580–581. Here, by contrast, the warden and the commissioner are not free to use an alternative to lethal injection—so if Nance succeeds, they cannot carry out his sentence. And though the Court contends otherwise, that consequence “switches Nance’s claim to the habeas track.” Ante , at 8. An inmate can use §1983 actions to challenge many, if not most, as

pects of prison administration. But when a challenge would prevent a State from enforcing a conviction or sentence, the more rigorous, federalism-pr otective requirements of ha

beas apply. The Court finds a way around those require

ments with a theory at odds with the very federalism inter

ests they are designed to protect: that an injunction barring the State from enforcing a sentence according to state law does not really bar the State from enforcing the sentence because the State can pass a new law. Unlike the Court, I would take state law as we find it in determining whether a suit sounds in habeas or §1983. The Court worries that this approach would make the appropri

ate federal vehicle “depend on the vagaries of state law.” Ante , at 11. Some States, like G eorgia, provide for a single method of execution by statute; other States, like Alabama, allow for more flexibility. See ibid. So if state law deter

mined the vehicle, an inmate in Georgia would have to chal

lenge the lethal injection method in habeas, while an in

mate in Alabama could use §1983. But that does not illustrate “the vagaries of state law”; it is an unremarkable consequence of federalism. Stat es make different choices in4 NANCE v. WARD

B ARRETT , J., dissenting
exercising their power to de fine punishment, and the law has long recognized a sovereign’s interest in mandating a particular form of capital punishment. Cf. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 397 (1769) (a sheriff would be “guilty of felony” if he “alter[ed] the manner of the execution”). Habeas is appr opriate in Georgia because un

der Georgia law, to enjoin execution by lethal injection is to enjoin enforcement of the sentence itself. See Ga. Code Ann. §17–10–38(a) (“All persons who have been convicted of a capital offense and have had imposed upon them a sen

tence of death shall suffer such punishment by lethal injec

tion”). In Alabama, enjoining execution by lethal injection does not have the same effect. See Ala. Code §15–18–82.1(c) (2018) (permitting execution “b y any constitutional method of execution” if the other me thods provided for by statute are held unconstitutional). The two sovereigns have made different choices about how to define punishment, and fed

eral law is designed to respect the choice of each. I understand the impulse to find a way out of habeas and into §1983. In States like Georgia, a claim under Bucklew

v. Precythe , 587 U. S. ___ (2019), alleging an alternative method of execution not presently authorized by state law would be difficult to assert in a federal habeas application because it would “almost inevitably collide with the second

or-successive bar.” Ante , at 12. But we acknowledged that very possibility in Bucklew . 587 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19). And more importantly, the unavailability of federal ha

beas relief does not justify recourse to §1983. Cf. Wilkinson

v. Dotson , 544 U. S. 74, 87–88 (2005) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“[A] prisoner who wishes to challenge the length of his con

finement, but who cannot obtain federal habeas relief be

cause of the statute of limitations or the restrictions on suc

cessive petitions, cannot use the unavailability of federal habeas relief in his individual case as grounds for proceed

ing under §1983” (citations omi tted)). The habeas statutes funnel such challenges to the state courts—which are, after5 Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022)

B ARRETT , J., dissenting all, “the principal forum” for them. Harrington v. Richter

, 562 U. S. 86, 103 (2011). For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.