SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Lethal Injection

The Supreme Court has doled out decisions on big cases from the Affordable Care Act to gay marriage, and on Monday, it upheld lethal injection stating it was not cruel and unusual punishment to administer a drug meant to sedate prisoners during execution. The ruling on lethal injection has once again ignited the death penalty debate.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supremes found that Oklahoma can continue to use the controversial chemical midazolam as part of its three-drug protocol, dismissing arguments that it does not protect prisoners from excruciating pain. Glossip v. Gross, was centered on the use of midazolam in Oklahoma executions: the plaintiffs, all condemned to die, said that its use was a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause, a.k.a. the “don’t torture people” clause. The razor thin decision shows a change of heart in Justices when it comes to the constitutionality of the death penalty.

For the first time in 20 years, the ruling prompted two sitting Supreme Court judges to doubt whether the death penalty, itself, may be unconstitutional. The court found a state is not required to find more painless methods of execution, especially when other are more difficult to find. “[B]ecause some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, we have held that the Constitution does not require the avoidance of all risk of pain,” Alito wrote. “After all, while most humans wish to die a painless death, many do not have that good fortune. Holding that the Eighth Amendment demands the elimination of essentially all risk of pain would effectively outlaw the death penalty altogether.”

While the question of constitutionality was not a factor in the majority opinion, it did not stop Justices Breyer and Ginsberg from calling into question if the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. “In 1976, the Court thought that the constitutional infirmities in the death penalty could be healed; the Court in effect delegated significant responsibility to the States to develop procedures that would protect against those constitutional problems,” Breyer wrote. “Almost 40 years of studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate, however, that this effort has failed.”

Flawed testimony and lengthy stays on death row are among a couple examples Breyer cited in his growing concern with the constitutionality of the death penalty. By the time the ruling had been handed down, it was apparent the Glossip decision revealed a steep divide among Justices, and left no room for question on where the liberal part of the Court stood when it came to the death penalty.

With two Supremes refusing to use a bandaid on a gaping wound to fix what they believe is an already broken system of execution on the death penalty, the line has in the sand has been drawn and this is only the beginning of dissension among the Justices. It’s a safe bet that we haven’t hear the last of the death penalty debate and according to my magic 8ball the outlook is good that this topic may play a significant role in the 2016 elections.