Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-927_i42k.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

UNITED STATES v. HIGGS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

under  modern  diagnostic  standards.    Lower  courts,  how-
ever, held that these inmates were barred from challenging 
their executions on this ground because they had previously 
been  denied  relief  under  outdated  diagnostic  standards.
See 28 U. S. C. §2255(h).  Yet there are compelling reasons 
to believe that the FDPA directs courts to evaluate intellec-
tual disability based on the standards prevailing at the time
of  the  execution.  See  Bourgeois  v.  Watson,  592  U. S.  ___, 
___–___  (2020)  (SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  dissenting  from  denial  of
certiorari and application for stay) (slip op., at 2–4); Order 
in United States v. Johnson, No. 20–15, pp. 4–5 (CA4, Jan. 
14, 2021) (Wynn, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en 
banc); Order in  United States v. Johnson, No. 20–15, p. 7 
(CA4, Jan. 12, 2021) (Motz, J., concurring in part in denial
of stay).  On that view, prior proceedings relying on obsolete
medical standards do not preclude consideration of whether 
an individual “is” intellectually disabled at the time of his 
execution.  18  U. S. C.  §3596(c).    This  Court  should  have 
answered  this  consequential  question  before  allowing  the 
Government to execute Bourgeois and Johnson.  Their exe-
cutions may well have been illegal.

The Court has also allowed executions to proceed in the
face of significant challenges to the 2019 Protocol’s method
of execution.  A federal district court found that Daniel Lee, 
Wesley Purkey, and Keith Nelson were likely to succeed in 
showing that the 2019 Protocol violates the Eighth Amend-
ment because pentobarbital causes fluid to rapidly accumu-
late  in  the  lungs,  resulting  in  “ ‘extreme  pain,  terror  and
panic.’ ”  See In re Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Execution Pro-
tocol Cases, 471 F. Supp. 3d 209, 218–219 (DC 2020).  Ac-
cordingly, the District Court preliminarily enjoined execu-
tions  under  the  2019  Protocol.  Id.,  at  225.  This  Court 
vacated the injunction and allowed the executions to move
forward, concluding that the Government’s “competing ex-
pert  testimony”  rendered  a  “last-minute”  stay  inappropri-
ate.  Barr v. Lee, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (per curiam) (slip