Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Bucklew v. Precythe

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Bucklew v. Precythe
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: November 6, 2018
Decided: April 1, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

Bucklew v. Precythe is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 6, 2018, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The court affirmed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, holding Bucklew did not meet criteria under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings requiring a death-row inmate to show (1) that a feasible and readily implemented alternative method existed and (2) that the state refused to use the method without a good reason. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the 8th Circuit.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Russell Bucklew was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape, and he was sentenced to death by a jury. He filed an action claiming that his rare medical condition would cause his death by lethal injection to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Bucklew asked to be executed by nitrogen hypoxia. He also questioned whether two members of Missouri’s lethal injection team were qualified to carry out his execution. The district court ruled against all of Bucklew's claims, and the 8th Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s findings.
  • The issue: (1) Whether a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state’s method of execution based on an inmate’s rare and severe medical condition should assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that procedure will go as intended. (2) Whether evidence comparing a state’s method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate must be offered via a single witness, or whether a court at summary judgment must look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate. (3) Whether the Eighth Amendment requires an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state’s proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition. (4) Whether petitioner Russell Bucklew met his burden under Glossip v. Gross to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the state’s method of execution.[3]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the ruling of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, holding Bucklew did not meet criteria under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings requiring a death-row inmate to show (1) that a feasible and readily implemented alternative method existed and (2) that the state refused to use the method without a good reason.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 1, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 8th Circuit's ruling
    • November 6, 2018: Oral argument
    • May 14, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • March 15, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 15, 2018: Eighth Circuit Court affirmed lower court’s ruling

    Background

    Russell Bucklew was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape, and he was sentenced to death by a jury. He was scheduled to be executed on May 21, 2014. Before his execution date, he filed an action claiming that his rare medical condition would cause his death by lethal injection to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of his Eighth Amendment right. Bucklew has “cavernous hemangioma, a disease that has caused blood-filled tumors in his head, neck and throat.” He claimed that death by lethal injection could cause him to choke on his blood. Bucklew asked to be executed by nitrogen hypoxia. He also questioned whether two members of Missouri’s lethal injection team were qualified to carry out his execution.[5][6]

    The district court found that Bucklew failed to show that lethal injection would cause extra harm because of his medical condition. The court also found that his alternative method of execution was not feasible. Additionally, the district court found that it was inappropriate to question the qualifications of the members of the execution staff. The Eighth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s findings.[6]

    Bucklew appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear his case on May 14, 2018.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    • Whether a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state’s method of execution based on an inmate’s rare and severe medical condition should assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that procedure will go as intended.
    • Whether evidence comparing a state’s method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate must be offered via a single witness, or whether a court at summary judgment must look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate.
    • Whether the Eighth Amendment requires an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state’s proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition.
    • Whether petitioner Russell Bucklew met his burden under Glossip v. Gross to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the state’s method of execution.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]

    Transcript

    • Read the oral argument transcript here.

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the 8th Circuit, holding Bucklew did not meet criteria under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings requiring a death-row inmate to show (1) that a feasible and readily implemented alternative method existed and (2) that the state refused to use the method without a good reason. The court also held Bucklew failed to show that nitrogen hypoxia would reduce the risk of severe pain. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.[2][6]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “ In sum, even if execution by nitrogen hypoxia were a feasible and readily implemented alternative to the State’s chosen method, Mr. Bucklew has still failed to present any evidence suggesting that it would significantly reduce his risk of pain. For that reason as well, the State was entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Bucklew’s Eighth Amendment claim.[8] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, filed concurring opinions.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[2]

    “ I adhere to my view that 'a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain.' ... Because there is no evidence that Missouri designed its protocol to inflict pain on anyone, let alone Russell Bucklew, I would end the inquiry there. Nonetheless, I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly explains why Bucklew’s claim fails even under the Court’s precedents. [8] ”

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[2]

    “ 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.[8] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, joined. In his dissent, Breyer wrote:

    “ Executing Bucklew by lethal injection risks subjecting him to constitutionally impermissible suffering. The majority holds that the State may execute him anyway. In my view, that holding violates the clear command of the Eighth Amendment. [8] ”


    Breyer continued that previous court precedent "squarely and unanimously rejected the argument that a prisoner must 'identif[y] an alternative, authorized method of execution.'" He also wrote that Bucklew had satisfied the burden of showing that a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution existed.[2]

    Justice Sotomayor also filed a separate dissent. Sotomayor wrote:[2]

    “ There is no sound basis in the Constitution for requiring condemned inmates to identify an available means for their own executions. [8] ”

    Text of the opinion

    • Read the full opinion here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "17-8151 Bucklew v. Precythe," accessed October 25, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Bucklew v. Precythe, April 1, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Bucklew v. Precythe," accessed October 25, 2018
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Bucklew v. Precythe," accessed October 25, 2018
    5. ↑ Bloomberg, "Death-Row Inmate With Rare Disease Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review," April 30, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Oyez, "Bucklew v. Precythe," accessed October 25, 2018
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Bucklew v. Precythe, argued November 6, 2018
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Bucklew_v._Precythe&oldid=9117269"