Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

Opinion of the Court 

Post,  at  30–31.  And  the  principal  dissent  makes  this 
suggestion  even  though  the  Court  held  in  Wilkerson  that 
this  method  (the  firing  squad)  is  constitutional  and  even
though,  in  the  words  of  the  principal  dissent,  “there  is
some  reason  to  think  that  it  is  relatively  quick  and  pain-
less.”  Post,  at  30.  Tellingly  silent  about  the  methods  of 
execution  most  commonly  used  before  States  switched  to
lethal  injection  (the  electric  chair  and  gas  chamber),  the 
principal dissent implies that it would be unconstitutional 
to  use  a  method  that  “could  be  seen  as  a  devolution  to  a 
more primitive era.”  Ibid.  If States cannot return to any
of the “more primitive” methods used in the past and if no
drug  that  meets  with  the  principal  dissent’s  approval  is
available  for  use  in  carrying  out  a  death  sentence,  the
logical  conclusion  is  clear.    But  we  have  time  and  again 
reaffirmed that capital punishment is not per se unconsti-
tutional.  See,  e.g.,  Baze,  553  U. S.,  at  47;  id.,  at  87–88 
(SCALIA,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment);  Gregg,  428  U. S.,  at 
187  (joint  opinion  of  Stewart,  Powell,  and  Stevens,  JJ.); 
id.,  at  226  (White,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment);  Resweber, 
329 U. S., at 464; In re Kemmler, 136 U. S., at 447; Wilker-
son,  99  U. S.,  at  134–135.    We  decline  to  effectively  over-
rule these decisions. 

V 

We  also  affirm  for  a  second  reason:  The  District  Court 
did not commit clear error when it found that midazolam 
is  highly  likely  to  render  a  person  unable  to  feel  pain 
during  an  execution.    We  emphasize  four  points  at  the
outset of our analysis. 

First,  we  review  the  District  Court’s  factual  findings
under  the  deferential  “clear  error”  standard.    This  stand-
ard  does  not  entitle  us  to  overturn  a  finding  “simply  be-
cause [we are] convinced that [we] would have decided the 
case  differently.”  Anderson  v.  Bessemer  City,  470  U. S. 
564, 573 (1985).