Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

Syllabus 

Amendment.  Pp. 11–29. 

(a) To  obtain  a  preliminary  injunction,  petitioners  must  establish,
among  other  things,  a  likelihood  of  success  on  the  merits  of  their
claim.  See  Winter  v.  Natural  Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,  555 
U. S.  7,  20.  To  succeed  on  an  Eighth  Amendment  method-of-
execution claim, a prisoner must establish that the method creates a
demonstrated  risk  of  severe  pain  and  that  the  risk  is  substantial
when  compared  to  the  known  and  available  alternatives.    Baze,  su-
pra, at 61 (plurality opinion).  Pp. 11–13.

(b) Petitioners  failed  to  establish  that  any  risk  of  harm  was  sub-
stantial when compared to a known and available alternative method
of  execution.  Petitioners  have  suggested  that  Oklahoma  could  exe-
cute them using sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, but the District
Court did not commit a clear error when it found that those drugs are 
unavailable to the State.  Petitioners argue that the Eighth Amend-
ment does not require them to identify such an alternative, but their
argument is inconsistent with the controlling opinion in Baze, which 
imposed  a requirement that the Court now follows.  Petitioners also 
argue that the requirement to identify an alternative is inconsistent
with  the  Court’s  pre-Baze  decision  in  Hill  v.  McDonough,  547  U. S. 
573, but they misread that decision.  Hill concerned a question of civ-
il  procedure,  not  a  substantive  Eighth  Amendment  question.    That 
case  held  that  §1983  alone  does  not  require  an  inmate  asserting  a
method-of-execution  claim  to  plead  an  acceptable  alternative.    Baze, 
on the other hand, made clear that the Eighth Amendment requires a 
prisoner  to  plead  and  prove  a  known  and  available  alternative. 
Pp. 13–16. 

(c) The District Court did not commit clear error when it found that
midazolam is likely to render a person unable to feel pain associated
with  administration  of  the  paralytic  agent  and  potassium  chloride. 
Pp. 16–29. 

(1) Several  initial  considerations  bear  emphasis.    First,  the  Dis-
trict  Court’s  factual  findings  are  reviewed  under  the  deferential 
“clear  error”  standard.    Second,  petitioners  have  the  burden  of  per-
suasion  on  the  question  whether  midazolam  is  effective.    Third,  the 
fact that numerous courts have concluded that midazolam is likely to
render  an  inmate  insensate  to  pain  during  execution  heightens  the 
deference owed to the District Court’s findings.  Finally, challenges to 
lethal  injection  protocols  test  the  boundaries  of  the  authority  and
competency of federal courts, which should not embroil themselves in
ongoing scientific controversies beyond their expertise.  Baze, supra,
at 51.  Pp. 16–18.

(2) The State’s expert presented persuasive testimony that a 500-
milligram  dose  of  midazolam  would  make  it  a  virtual  certainty  that