Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 14–7955 
_________________ 

RICHARD E. GLOSSIP, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
 
KEVIN J. GROSS, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 29, 2015] 

JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SCALIA  joins,

concurring. 

I  agree  with  the  Court  that  petitioners’  Eighth  Amend-
ment  claim  fails.  That  claim  has  no  foundation  in  the 
Eighth Amendment, which prohibits only those “method[s] 
of  execution”  that  are  “deliberately  designed  to  inflict 
pain.”  Baze  v.  Rees,  553  U. S.  35,  94  (2008)  (THOMAS, J., 
concurring  in  judgment).    Because  petitioners  make  no
allegation  that  Oklahoma  adopted  its  lethal  injection 
protocol “to add elements of terror, pain, or disgrace to the
death  penalty,”  they  have  no  valid  claim.    Id.,  at  107. 
That should have been the end of this case, but our prece-
dents  have  predictably  transformed  the  federal  courts
“into boards of inquiry charged with determining the ‘best 
practices’  for  executions,”  id.,  at  101  (internal  quotation
marks  omitted),  necessitating  the  painstaking  factual 
inquiry the Court undertakes today.  Although I continue
to  believe  that  the  broader  interpretation  of  the  Eighth
Amendment  advanced  in  the  plurality  opinion  in  Baze  is 
erroneous,  I  join  the  Court’s  opinion  in  full  because  it
correctly  explains  why  petitioners’  claim  fails  even  under
that controlling opinion.

I  write  separately  to  respond  to  JUSTICE  BREYER’s  dis-
sent questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty 
generally.  No more need be said about the constitutional