Bucklew v. Precythe

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the standards established in Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern both facial and as-applied Eighth Amendment challenges to methods of execution. A prisoner must identify a feasible, readily implemented alternative method that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain, and the Court concluded that Russell Bucklew failed to satisfy that standard with his proposed nitrogen-hypoxia method. The Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit’s judgment.

Holdings

1. Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claims alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain, whether the challenge is facial or as applied.
2. Bucklew failed to establish that nitrogen hypoxia was a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution.
3. Bucklew failed to present evidence that nitrogen hypoxia would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain compared with Missouri's pentobarbital protocol.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Baze-Glossip alternative-method test governs all Eighth Amendment method-of-execution challenges, including as-applied challenges based on an inmate's particular medical condition.
2. Whether Bucklew identified a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that Missouri declined to adopt without a legitimate penological reason.
3. Whether the record created a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed