Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

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 

GLOSSIP ET AL. v. GROSS ET AL. 

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

No. 14–7955.  Argued April 29, 2015—Decided June 29, 2015 

Because capital punishment is constitutional, there must be a constitu-
tional means of carrying it out.  After Oklahoma adopted lethal injec-
tion as its method of execution, it settled on a three-drug protocol of 
(1) sodium  thiopental  (a  barbiturate)  to  induce  a  state  of  uncon-
sciousness,  (2) a  paralytic  agent  to  inhibit  all  muscular-skeletal
movements,  and  (3) potassium  chloride  to  induce  cardiac  arrest.    In 
Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35, the Court held that this protocol does not 
violate  the  Eighth  Amendment’s  prohibition  against  cruel  and  unu-
sual  punishments.    Anti-death-penalty  advocates  then  pressured 
pharmaceutical  companies  to  prevent  sodium  thiopental  (and,  later,
another  barbiturate  called  pentobarbital)  from  being  used  in  execu-
tions.  Unable  to  obtain  either  sodium  thiopental  or  pentobarbital,
Oklahoma decided to use a 500-milligram dose of midazolam, a seda-
tive, as the first drug in its three-drug protocol. 

Oklahoma  death-row  inmates  filed  a  42  U. S. C.  §1983  action
claiming that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment.
Four of those inmates filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and 
argued that a 500-milligram dose of midazolam will not render them
unable to feel pain associated with administration of the second and 
third drugs.  After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court
denied  the  motion.  It  held  that  the  prisoners  failed  to  identify  a 
known and available alternative method of execution that presented 
a substantially less severe risk of pain.  It also held that the prison-
ers failed to establish a likelihood of showing that the use of midazo-
lam  created  a  demonstrated  risk  of  severe  pain.    The  Tenth  Circuit 
affirmed. 

Held: Petitioners have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the 
merits  of  their  claim  that  the  use  of  midazolam  violates  the  Eighth