Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

Opinion of the Court 

could use sodium thiopental as part of a single-drug proto-
col.  They have since suggested that it might also be con-
stitutional  for  Oklahoma  to  use  pentobarbital.    But  the 
District  Court  found  that  both  sodium  thiopental  and 
pentobarbital  are  now  unavailable  to  Oklahoma’s  De-
partment  of  Corrections.    The  Court  of  Appeals  affirmed 
that  finding,  and  it  is  not  clearly  erroneous.  On  the  con-
trary, the record shows that Oklahoma has been unable to 
procure those drugs despite a good-faith effort to do so.

Petitioners do not seriously contest this factual finding,
and  they  have  not  identified  any  available  drug  or  drugs
that could be used in place of those that Oklahoma is now 
unable  to  obtain.  Nor  have  they  shown  a  risk  of  pain  so
great  that  other  acceptable,  available  methods  must  be
used.  Instead,  they  argue  that  they  need  not  identify  a 
known  and  available  method  of  execution  that  presents 
less  risk.    But  this  argument  is  inconsistent  with  the 
controlling  opinion  in  Baze,  553  U. S.,  at  61,  which  im-
posed a requirement that the Court now follows.2 

Petitioners  contend  that  the  requirement  to  identify  an 
alternative method of execution contravenes our pre-Baze 
decision  in  Hill  v.  McDonough,  547  U. S.  573  (2006),  but 
they misread that decision.  The portion of the opinion in 
Hill  on  which  they  rely  concerned  a  question  of  civil  pro-
cedure, not a substantive Eighth Amendment question.  In 

—————— 

2 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent (hereinafter principal dissent), post, at 
24–25,  inexplicably  refuses  to  recognize  that  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE’s 
opinion in Baze sets out the holding of the case.  In Baze, the opinion of
THE CHIEF JUSTICE was joined by two other JUSTICES.  JUSTICES SCALIA 
and  THOMAS  took  the  broader  position  that  a  method  of  execution  is 
consistent  with  the  Eighth  Amendment  unless  it  is  deliberately  de-
signed to inflict pain.  553 U. S., at 94 (THOMAS, J. concurring in judg-
ment).  Thus,  as  explained  in  Marks  v.  United  States,  430  U. S.  188, 
193  (1977),  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE’s  opinion  sets  out  the  holding  of  the 
case.    It  is  for  this  reason  that  petitioners  base  their  argument  on  the 
rule set out in that opinion.  See Brief for Petitioners 25, 28.