Glossip v. Gross | |
---|---|
Argued April 29, 2015 Decided June 29, 2015 | |
Full case name | Richard E. Glossip, et al. v. Kevin J. Gross, et al. |
Docket no. | 14-7955 |
Citations | 576 U.S. 863 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2726; 192 L. Ed. 2d 761 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | affirming denial of injunction, 776 F.3d 721 (10th Cir. 2015); denying stays of execution, 135 S. Ct. 824 (2015) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1173 (2015). |
Subsequent | denying stay of execution, 136 S. Ct. 26 (September 30, 2015) (Breyer, J., dissenting). |
Holding | |
Petitioners have the burden of proof that a method of execution involves any risk of harm which is substantial when compared to a known and available alternative method. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
Concurrence | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg |
Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. VIII; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.