Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

implemented, and in fact significantly reduce[s] a substan-
tial risk of severe pain.”  Id., at 52. 

The controlling opinion summarized the requirements of 
an  Eighth  Amendment  method-of-execution  claim  as 
follows:  “A  stay  of  execution  may  not  be  granted  on
grounds such as those asserted here unless the condemned 
prisoner establishes that the State’s lethal injection proto-
col creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain.  [And] [h]e 
must show that the risk is substantial when compared to
the  known  and  available  alternatives.”    Id.,  at  61.  The 
preliminary  injunction  posture  of  the  present  case  thus 
requires petitioners to establish a likelihood that they can 
establish  both  that  Oklahoma’s  lethal  injection  protocol 
creates  a  demonstrated  risk  of  severe  pain  and  that  the 
risk  is  substantial  when  compared  to  the  known  and
available alternatives. 

The challenge in Baze failed both because the Kentucky 
inmates  did  not  show  that  the  risks  they  identified  were 
substantial and imminent, id., at 56, and because they did 
not establish the existence of a known and available alter-
native method of execution that would entail a significantly 
less  severe  risk,  id.,  at  57–60.    Petitioners’  arguments 
here  fail  for  similar  reasons.   First,  petitioners  have  not
proved  that  any  risk  posed  by  midazolam  is  substantial 
when compared to known and available alternative meth-
ods of execution.  Second, they have failed to establish that 
the  District  Court  committed  clear  error  when  it  found 
that  the  use  of  midazolam  will  not  result  in  severe  pain
and suffering.  We address each reason in turn. 

IV 

Our  first  ground  for  affirmance  is  based  on  petitioners’ 
failure to satisfy their burden of establishing that any risk 
of  harm  was  substantial  when  compared  to  a  known  and
available  alternative  method  of  execution. 
In  their 
amended  complaint,  petitioners  proffered  that  the  State