Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

or an hour. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Tenth  Circuit  affirmed. 
776  F. 3d  721.    The  Court  of  Appeals  explained  that  our 
decision  in  Baze  requires  a  plaintiff  challenging  a  lethal
injection  protocol  to  demonstrate  that  the  risk  of  severe
pain  presented  by  an  execution  protocol  is  substantial 
“ ‘when  compared  to  the  known  and  available  alterna-
tives.’ ”  Id.,  at  732  (quoting  Baze,  supra,  at  61).  And  it 
agreed  with  the  District  Court  that  petitioners  had  not 
identified  any  such  alternative.  The  Court  of  Appeals
added,  however,  that  this  holding  was  “not  outcome-
determinative in this case” because petitioners additionally 
failed  to  establish  that  the  use  of  midazolam  creates  a 
demonstrated risk of severe pain.  776 F. 3d, at 732.  The 
Court  of  Appeals  found  that  the  District  Court  did  not 
abuse  its  discretion  by  relying  on  Dr.  Evans’  testimony,
and it concluded that the District Court’s factual findings 
about midazolam were not clearly erroneous.  It also held 
that alleged errors in Dr. Evans’ testimony did not render 
his  testimony  unreliable  or  the  District  Court’s  findings
clearly erroneous.

Oklahoma  executed  Warner  on  January  15,  2015,  but 
we  subsequently  voted  to  grant  review  and  then  stayed
the  executions  of  Glossip,  Cole,  and  Grant  pending  the
resolution of this case.  574 U. S. ___ (2015). 

III 
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must estab-
lish  that  he  is  likely  to  succeed  on  the  merits,  that  he  is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of prelimi-
nary  relief,  that  the  balance  of  equities  tips  in  his  favor,
and that an injunction is in the public interest.”  Winter v. 
Natural  Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.,  555  U. S.  7,  20 
(2008).  The parties agree that this case turns on whether 
petitioners are able to establish a likelihood of success on 
the merits.