Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 100

4 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

cials  ordered  the  blinds  lowered,  then  halted  the  execu­
But  10  minutes  later— 
tion. 
approximately  40  minutes  after  the  execution  began—
Lockett was pronounced dead.  Id., at 395. 

Id.,  at  393,  395. 

The State stayed all future executions while it sought to
determine what had gone wrong in Lockett’s.  Five months 
later,  the  State  released  an  investigative  report  identify­
ing a flaw in the IV line as the principal difficulty: The IV 
had  failed  to  fully  deliver  the  lethal  drugs  into  Lockett’s
veins.  Id., at 398.  An autopsy determined, however, that
the  concentration  of  midazolam  in  Lockett’s  blood  was 
more  than  sufficient  to  render  an  average  person  uncon­
scious.  Id., at 397, 405. 

In  response  to  this  report,  the  State  modified  its  lethal 
injection protocol.  The new protocol contains a number of 
procedures  designed  to  guarantee  that  members  of  the
execution  team  are  able  to  insert  the  IV  properly,  and 
charges  them  with  ensuring  that  the  inmate  is  uncon­
scious.  Id., at 57–66, 361–369.  But the protocol continues
to authorize the use of the same three-drug formula used 
to kill Lockett—though it does increase the intended dose 
of midazolam from 100 milligrams to 500 milligrams.  Id., 
at  61.    The  State  has  indicated  that  it  plans  to  use  this
drug  combination  in  all  upcoming  executions,  subject  to 
only an immaterial substitution of paralytic agents.  Ante, 
at 7–8. 

C 
In June 2014, inmates on Oklahoma’s death row filed a 
42  U. S. C.  §1983  suit  against  respondent  prison  officials
challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s method of 
execution.  After  the  State  released  its  revised  execution 
protocol,  the  four  inmates  whose  executions  were  most
imminent—Charles  Warner,  along  with  petitioners  Rich­
ard Glossip, John Grant, and Benjamin Cole—moved for a
preliminary  injunction.  They  contended,  among  other