Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/100

 4

GLOSSIP v. GROSS SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

cials ordered the blinds lowered, then halted the execu­ tion. Id., at 393, 395. But 10 minutes later— approximately 40 minutes after the execution began— Lockett was pronounced dead. Id., at 395. The State stayed all future executions while it sought to determine what had gone wrong in Lockett’s. Five months later, the State released an investigative report identify­ ing a flaw in the IV line as the principal difficulty: The IV had failed to fully deliver the lethal drugs into Lockett’s veins. Id., at 398. An autopsy determined, however, that the concentration of midazolam in Lockett’s blood was more than sufficient to render an average person uncon­ scious. Id., at 397, 405. In response to this report, the State modified its lethal injection protocol. The new protocol contains a number of procedures designed to guarantee that members of the execution team are able to insert the IV properly, and charges them with ensuring that the inmate is uncon­ scious. Id., at 57–66, 361–369. But the protocol continues to authorize the use of the same three-drug formula used to kill Lockett—though it does increase the intended dose of midazolam from 100 milligrams to 500 milligrams. Id., at 61. The State has indicated that it plans to use this drug combination in all upcoming executions, subject to only an immaterial substitution of paralytic agents. Ante, at 7–8. C In June 2014, inmates on Oklahoma’s death row filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 suit against respondent prison officials challenging the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s method of execution. After the State released its revised execution protocol, the four inmates whose executions were most imminent—Charles Warner, along with petitioners Rich­ ard Glossip, John Grant, and Benjamin Cole—moved for a preliminary injunction. They contended, among other