Editing Lethal injection (section)

==Constitutionality in the United States==
In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Hill v. McDonough]]'' that death-row inmates in the United States could challenge the constitutionality of states' lethal injection procedures through a federal civil rights lawsuit. Since then, numerous death-row inmates have brought such challenges in the lower courts, claiming that lethal injection as practiced violates the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" found in the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjectionResourcePages/index.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120804222807/http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjectionResourcePages/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-08-04 |title=Lethal Injection Resource Pages |publisher=Death Penalty Clinic, UC Berkeley School of Law }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Issue Overview |url=http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjection/LI/overview.html |date=April 5, 2011 |publisher=Death Penalty Clinic, UC Berkeley School of Law |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312095544/http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjection/LI/overview.html |archive-date=March 12, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Lower courts evaluating these challenges have reached opposing conclusions. For example, courts have found that lethal injection as practiced in California,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjectionDocuments/California/Morales/Morales%20Dist%20Ct/200612.15%20memorandum%20of%20intended%20decision.pdf |title=Memorandum of Intended Decision (Morales) |date=December 15, 2006 |publisher=Death Penalty Clinic, UC Berkeley School of Law }}{{dead link|date=July 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Florida,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjectionDocuments/Florida/Lightbourne/2007.07.31%20Lightbourne%20Order.pdf |title=Lightbourne Order |date=July 31, 2007 |publisher=Death Penalty Clinic, UC Berkeley School of Law }}{{dead link|date=July 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> and Tennessee<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjectionDocuments/Tennessee/Harbison/TN.harbison_Order_9_07.pdf |title=Harbison Order |date=September 2007 |publisher=Death Penalty Clinic, UC Berkeley School of Law }}{{dead link|date=July 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> is unconstitutional. Other courts have found that lethal injection as practiced in Missouri,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.berkeley.edu/clinics/dpclinic/LethalInjectionDocuments/Missouri/Taylor/2007.06.04%20CA8%20Op.pdf |title=Opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit |date=June 4, 2007 |publisher=Death Penalty Clinic, UC Berkeley School of Law }}{{dead link|date=July 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Arizona,<ref>State v. Adams, 194 Ariz. 408 (1999).</ref> and Oklahoma<ref>Duty v. Sirmons, No. CIV-05-23-FHS-SPS, 2007 WL 2358648 (E.D. Okla. August 17, 2007).</ref> is constitutionally acceptable.

As of 2014, California has nearly 750 prisoners condemned to death by lethal injection despite the moratorium imposed when in 2006 a federal court found California's lethal injection procedures to be unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12975506164702298219&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 |title=Morales v. Tilton |date=December 15, 2006}}</ref> A newer lethal injection facility has been constructed at [[San Quentin State Prison]] which cost over $800,000,<ref>{{Cite journal |url=http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/HCR/Detail.aspx?id=5359 |title=Rethinking the Ethics of Physician Participation in Lethal Injection Execution |journal=The Hastings Center Report |first1=Lawrence |last1=Nelson |first2=Brandon |last2=Ashby |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=28–37 |date=May–June 2011 |doi=10.1353/hcr.2011.0062 |pmid=21678813 |s2cid=30592192 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304172039/http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/HCR/Detail.aspx?id=5359 |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |df=mdy-all |access-date=March 19, 2016 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> but it has yet to be used because a state court found that the [[California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation]] violated the [[California Administrative Procedure Act]] by attempting to prevent public oversight when new injection procedures were being created.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1633129.html |title=Sims v. CDCR |date=May 30, 2006 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325005013/https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1633129.html |archive-date=March 25, 2014 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

On September 25, 2007, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a lethal-injection challenge arising from Kentucky, ''[[Baze v. Rees]]''.<ref>{{citation |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092507pzr.pdf |title=Orders in Pending Cases |date=September 25, 2007 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170203091249/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092507pzr.pdf |archive-date=February 3, 2017 |df=mdy-all |access-date=June 27, 2017 }}</ref> In Baze, the Supreme Court addressed whether Kentucky's particular lethal-injection procedure (using the standard three-drug protocol) comports with the Eighth Amendment; it also determined the proper legal standard by which lethal-injection challenges in general should be judged, all in an effort to bring some uniformity to how these claims are handled by the lower courts.<ref>{{citation |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/07-05439qp.pdf |title=07-5439 BAZE V. REES |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202180537/https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/07-05439qp.pdf |archive-date=February 2, 2017 |df=mdy-all |access-date=June 27, 2017 }}</ref> Although uncertainty over whether executions in the United States would be put on hold during the period in which the United States Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of lethal injection initially arose after the court agreed to hear Baze,<ref>{{citation |url=http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/09/everyone-trying.html |date=September 29, 2007 |first=Douglas A. |last=Berman |title=Everyone trying to figure out if there is now an execution moratorium |work=Sentencing Law and Policy |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160105042301/http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/09/everyone-trying.html |archive-date=January 5, 2016 |df=mdy-all |access-date=September 30, 2007 }}</ref> no executions took place during the period between when the court agreed to hear the case and when its ruling was announced, with the exception of one lethal injection in Texas hours after the court made its announcement.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0307/breaking79.htm |date=March 3, 2008 |title=UN calls for US death penalty halt |newspaper=The Irish Times }}{{Dead link|date=October 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court rejected ''Baze v. Rees'', thereby upholding Kentucky's method of lethal injection in a majority 7–2 decision.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00935320080416 |title=Top Court clears way for executions to resume |first=James |last=Vicini |location=Washington, DC |work=[[Reuters]] |date=April 16, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090110145402/http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00935320080416 |archive-date=January 10, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] and [[David Souter]] dissented.<ref>{{cite news |first=Bill |last=Mears |url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/scotus.injections/index.html |title=High court upholds lethal injection method |publisher=CNN |date=April 16, 2008 |location=Washington, DC |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205530/http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/scotus.injections/index.html |archive-date=March 3, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Several states immediately indicated plans to proceed with executions.

The U.S. Supreme Court also upheld a modified lethal-injection protocol in the 2015 case ''[[Glossip v. Gross]]''.<ref>''Glossip v. Gross'', No. 14-7955, [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576|576]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] ___ (2015), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210204093238/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf |date=February 4, 2021 }}</ref>  By the time of that case, Oklahoma had altered its execution protocol to use midazolam instead of thiopental or pentobarbital; the latter two drugs had become unavailable for executions due to the European embargo on selling them to prisons.  Inmates on Oklahoma's death row alleged that the use of midazolam was unconstitutional, because the drug was not proven to render a person unconscious as thiobarbital would. The Supreme Court found that the prisoners failed to demonstrate that midazolam would create a high risk of severe pain, and that the prisoners had not provided an alternative, practical method of execution that would have a lower risk.  Consequently, it ruled that the new method was permissible under the Eighth Amendment.

On March 15, 2018, [[Bucklew v. Precythe|Russell Bucklew]], a Missouri death-row inmate who had been scheduled to be executed on May 21, 2014, appealed the constitutionality of lethal injection on an as-applied basis. The basis for Bucklew's appeal was due to Bucklew's allegation that his rare medical condition would interfere with the effects of the drugs, potentially causing him to choke on his own blood. On April 1, 2019, The Supreme Court ruled against Bucklew on the grounds that his proposed alternative to lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia, was neither "readily implemented" nor established to "significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain".<ref>Multiple references:{{Bulleted list|{{Cite web |title=Bucklew v. Precythe |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bucklew-v-precythe/ |access-date=2024-10-18 |website=SCOTUSblog |language=en-US}}|{{Cite web |title=Russell Bucklew, Petitioner v. Anne L. Precythe |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-8151.html |access-date=2024-10-18 |website=www.supremecourt.gov}}|{{Cite web |date=2018-11-06 |title=Bucklew v. Precythe |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/17-8151 |access-date=2024-10-18 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}|BUCKLEW v. PRECYTHE, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. 587 U. S. ____ (2019). No. 17–8151. Supreme Court of the United States. (April 1, 2019)}}</ref> Bucklew was executed on October 1, 2019.<ref>{{Cite web |title=DPIC |url=https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/execution-database/1507/russell-bucklew |access-date=2024-10-18 |website=Death Penalty Information Center |language=en-US}}</ref>