Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-927_i42k.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. HIGGS 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

greater detail about many of these cases.  The present case 
concerns an inmate infected with COVID–19 at the Federal 
Correctional  Institution  in  Terre  Haute,  Indiana.   He  ar-
gues, and the District Court agreed, that COVID–19 caused 
him significant lung damage and that, as a result, execut-
ing him by injection of pentobarbital will “subject [him] to a 
sensation of drowning akin to waterboarding.”   In re Fed-
eral Bureau of Prisons’ Execution Protocol Cases, No. 1:19– 
mc–145, Doc. 394, p. 3 (D DC, Jan. 12, 2021).  He also ar-
gues that (for complex legal reasons) it is now too late for 
the  Federal  Government  to  obtain  an  order  changing  the 
state  law  designated  to  govern  his  execution  from  that  of 
Maryland (which is where he was sentenced but which has 
since abolished the death penalty) to that of Indiana (which 
maintains the death penalty). 

Consider  some  of  the  other  questions  that  the  federal 
death penalty cases have raised.  To what extent does the 
Government’s  use  of  pentobarbital  for  executions  risk  ex-
treme pain and needless suffering?  See Lee, supra, at ___ 
(BREYER,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  2).    Has  an  inmate 
demonstrated a sufficient likelihood that she is mentally in-
competent—to the point where she will not understand the 
fact, meaning, or significance of her execution?  See Mont-
gomery  v.  Warden,  ante,  p. ___;  Barr  v.  Purkey,  591  U. S. 
___, ___ (2020) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting from grant of va-
catur) (slip op., at 1).  Should a court apply contemporary 
diagnostic standards to determine whether an inmate is in-
tellectually disabled at the time of his execution, such that 
the execution is unlawful?  See Bourgeois v. Watson, ante, 
p. ___.    Is  a  defendant’s  second  habeas  challenge  to  his 
death sentence subject to the demanding standard for suc-
cessive  challenges, even  though  Government conduct pre-
vented him from being able to bring those claims in his first 
habeas petition?  See Bernard v. United States, ante, p. ___.  
Can a defendant’s second habeas challenge include a claim 
that  his  trial  counsel  was  constitutionally  inadequate