Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 105.0

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

9 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

D 

The  District  Court  denied  petitioners’  motion  for  a 
preliminary  injunction.  It  began  by  making  a  series  of 
factual  findings  regarding  the  characteristics  of  midazo­
lam  and  its  use  in  Oklahoma’s  execution  protocol.    Most 
relevant  here,  the  District  Court  found  that  “[t]he  proper
administration  of  500  milligrams  of  midazolam  . . .  would 
make it a virtual certainty that an individual will be at a
sufficient  level  of  unconsciousness  to  resist  the  noxious 
stimuli  which  could  occur  from  the  application  of  the 
second  and  third  drugs.”    Id.,  at  77.  Respecting  petition­
ers’  contention  that  there  is  a  “ceiling  effect  which  pre­
vents  an  increase  in  dosage  from  having  a  corresponding 
incremental effect on anesthetic depth,” the District Court
concluded: 

“Dr.  Evans  testified  persuasively  . . .  that  whatever 
the ceiling effect of midazolam may be with respect to 
anesthesia, which takes effect at the spinal cord level,
there is no ceiling effect with respect to the ability of a 
500  milligram  dose  of  midazolam  to  effectively  para­
lyze the brain, a phenomenon which is not anesthesia
but  does  have  the  effect  of  shutting  down  respiration 
and  eliminating  the  individual’s  awareness  of  pain.” 
Id., at 78. 

Having  made  these  findings,  the  District  Court  held
that petitioners had shown no likelihood of success on the 
merits  of  their  Eighth  Amendment  claim  for  two  inde­
pendent reasons.  First, it determined that petitioners had
“failed  to  establish  that  proceeding  with  [their]  execu­
tion[s] . . . on the basis of the revised protocol presents . . .
‘an objectively intolerable risk of harm.’ ”  Id., at 96.  Sec­
ond, the District Court held that petitioners were unlikely 
to prevail because they had not identified any “ ‘known and 
available  alternative’ ”  means  by  which  they  could  be
executed—a  requirement  it  understood  Baze  to  impose.