Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-927_i42k.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

among  execution  methods  such  as  hanging,  electrocution,
or lethal injection.”  In re Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Execution 
Protocol Cases, 955 F. 3d 106, 113 (CADC 2020) (Execution 
Protocol Cases I) (Katsas, J., concurring).  Others read the 
FDPA  to  incorporate  nearly  all  state  execution  protocols, 
including  those  details  that  precede  the  execution  itself. 
See Order in In re Fed. Bureau of Prisons’ Execution Proto-
col Cases, No. 20–5361, at 4–5 (CADC, Dec. 10, 2020) (en 
banc)  (per curiam)  (Execution  Protocol  Cases  II)  (Wilkins, 
J.,  dissenting);  see  also  Execution  Protocol  Cases  I,  955 
F. 3d,  at  149,  151  (Tatel,  J.,  dissenting).1   This  Court  has 
yet to say which interpretation is correct.  See Mitchell v. 
United States, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (SOTOMAYOR, J., re-
specting denial of application for stay) (slip op., at 2) (call-
ing  for  the  Court  to  “address  this  issue  in  an  appropriate
case”).  Worse,  the  Court  has  actively  prevented  lower
courts from providing definitive answers themselves.  Just 
four days ago, the D. C. Circuit granted Lisa Montgomery a
stay of her execution so it could decide this issue en banc. 
See Order in Montgomery v. Rosen, No. 21–5001 (Jan. 11, 
2011) (en banc).  This Court vacated that stay without ex-
planation.  Montgomery was executed hours later. 

Another outstanding question concerns the FDPA’s pro-
vision  that  “[a]  sentence  of  death  shall  not  be  carried  out 
upon a person who is [intellectually disabled].”  18 U. S. C. 
§3596(c).  Alfred  Bourgeois  and  Corey  Johnson  presented
substantial evidence that they were intellectually disabled 

—————— 

1  Other  judges  and  courts  have  taken  different  positions  along  this 
spectrum.  See Execution Protocol Cases I, 955 F. 3d, at 134 (Rao, J., con-
curring); Order in Montgomery v. Rosen, No. 21–5001, pp. 7–8 (CADC, 
Jan. 11, 2021) (Millett, J., dissenting); United States v. Vialva, 976 F. 3d 
458,  462  (CA5  2020)  (per  curiam);  LeCroy  v.  United  States,  975  F.  3d 
1192, 1198 (CA11 2020) (“Whatever that phrase means, we are confident 
that  it  does  not  extend  to  ensuring  a  lawyer’s  presence  at  execution”); 
United  States  v.  Mitchell,  971  F.  3d  993,  996–997  (CA9  2020)  (per  cu-
riam); Peterson v. Barr, 965 F. 3d 549, 554 (CA7 2020).