Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/98

 2

GLOSSIP v. GROSS SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

On both counts the Court errs. As a result, it leaves peti­ tioners exposed to what may well be the chemical equiva­ lent of being burned at the stake. I

A

The Eighth Amendment succinctly prohibits the inflic­ tion of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Seven years ago, in Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35 (2008), the Court addressed the application of this mandate to Kentucky’s lethal injec­ tion protocol. At that time, Kentucky, like at least 29 of the 35 other States with the death penalty, utilized a series of three drugs to perform executions: (1) sodium thiopental, a “fast-acting barbiturate sedative that induces a deep, comalike unconsciousness when given in the amounts used for lethal injection”; (2) pancuronium bro­ mide, “a paralytic agent that inhibits all muscular-skeletal movements and. . . stops respiration”; and (3) potassium chloride, which “interferes with the electrical signals that stimulate the contractions of the heart, inducing cardiac arrest.” Id., at 44 (plurality opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.). In Baze, it was undisputed that absent a “proper dose of sodium thiopental,” there would be a “substantial, consti­ tutionally unacceptable risk of suffocation from the admin­ istration of pancuronium bromide and pain from the injec­ tion of potassium chloride.” Id., at 53. That is because, if given to a conscious inmate, pancuronium bromide would leave him or her asphyxiated and unable to demonstrate “any outward sign of distress,” while potassium chloride would cause “excruciating pain.” Id., at 71 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). But the Baze petitioners conceded that if administered as intended, Kentucky’s method of execution would nevertheless “result in a humane death,” id., at 41 (plurality opinion), as the “proper administra­ tion” of sodium thiopental “eliminates any meaningful risk that a prisoner would experience pain from the subse­