Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 97.0

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 14–7955 
_________________ 

RICHARD E. GLOSSIP, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
 
KEVIN J. GROSS, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 29, 2015] 

JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 

JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

Petitioners,  three  inmates  on  Oklahoma’s  death  row, 

challenge  the  constitutionality  of  the  State’s  lethal  injec­
tion protocol.  The State plans to execute petitioners using 
three  drugs:  midazolam,  rocuronium  bromide,  and  potas­
sium chloride.  The latter two drugs are intended to para­
lyze  the  inmate  and  stop  his  heart.    But  they  do  so  in  a
torturous  manner,  causing  burning,  searing  pain.    It  is 
thus  critical  that  the  first  drug,  midazolam,  do  what  it  is 
supposed  to  do,  which  is  to  render  and  keep  the  inmate
unconscious.  Petitioners claim that midazolam cannot be 
expected to perform that function, and they have presented 
ample  evidence  showing  that  the  State’s  planned  use  of
this  drug  poses  substantial,  constitutionally  intolerable 
risks. 

Nevertheless,  the  Court  today  turns  aside  petitioners’ 
plea that they at least be allowed a stay of execution while 
they  seek  to  prove  midazolam’s  inadequacy.   The  Court 
achieves this result in two ways: first, by deferring to the 
District Court’s decision to credit the scientifically unsup­
ported  and  implausible  testimony  of  a  single  expert  wit­
ness;  and  second,  by  faulting  petitioners  for  failing  to
satisfy the wholly novel requirement of proving the avail­
ability  of  an  alternative  means  for  their  own  executions.