Page:Russell Bucklew v. Anne L. Precythe, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections.pdf/37

Rh

, concurring.

When an inmate raises an as-applied constitutional challenge to a particular method of execution—that is, a challenge to a method of execution that is constitutional in general but that the inmate says is very likely to cause him severe pain—one question is whether the inmate must identify an available alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce the risk of severe pain. Applying our recent decisions in Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), and Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35 (2008) (plurality opinion), the Court’s answer to that question is yes. Under those precedents, I agree with the Court’s holding and join the Court’s opinion.

I write to underscore the Court’s additional holding that the alternative method of execution need not be authorized under current state law—a legal issue that had been uncertain before today’s decision. See Arthur v. Dunn, 580 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (slip op., at 9–11) (, dissenting from denial of certiorari). Importantly, all nine Justices today agree on that point. Ante, at 19; post, at 14 (, dissenting).

As the Court notes, it follows from that additional holding that the burden of the alternative-method requirement “can be overstated.” Ante, at 19. Indeed, the Court