Bucklew v. Precythe
139 S. Ct. 1112
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- Russell Bucklew convicted of murder; Missouri scheduled execution by lethal injection using pentobarbital; Bucklew asserted an as-applied Eighth Amendment challenge based on a rare vascular condition (cavernous hemangioma) that he says would cause severe choking/hemorrhage and prolonged suffering during execution.
- Bucklew filed this as-applied claim 12 days before a scheduled 2014 execution; courts stayed execution and permitted extensive litigation and discovery over several years.
- Lower courts (district court and Eighth Circuit) dismissed his claims on summary judgment, principally because Bucklew failed to identify a "feasible, readily implemented" alternative that would "significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain," as required by Baze/Glossip.
- On remand Bucklew proposed nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative but offered limited operational detail (delivery method, concentration, safety measures) and no proof that it would materially reduce his asserted risk relative to pentobarbital.
- The Supreme Court (majority) held Glossip/Baze's comparative/alternative-method test applies to as-applied claims and affirmed summary judgment for Missouri because Bucklew failed to plead a readily implementable alternative and failed to show nitrogen would significantly reduce his risk of severe pain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Baze/Glossip alternative-method requirement applies to as-applied method-of-execution claims | Bucklew: requirement applies only to facial challenges; as-applied claims showing "substantial and particular" risk due to unique medical condition should not require an alternative | Missouri: Glossip/Baze govern all Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claims, facial or as-applied | Held: Baze/Glossip apply to all method-of-execution claims, including as-applied challenges |
| Whether Bucklew identified a "feasible, readily implemented" alternative (nitrogen hypoxia) | Bucklew: nitrogen hypoxia is feasible, simple, and would rapidly render him insensate | Missouri: proposal is untested, lacks necessary procedural detail, and no state has a usable implementation record; legitimate reason to decline first-use experimentation | Held: Bucklew failed to present a sufficiently detailed, readily implemented protocol; State's refusal to adopt an untried method is legitimate |
| Whether nitrogen hypoxia would "significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain" compared to pentobarbital | Bucklew: nitrogen would render him insensate in ~20–30 seconds vs. pentobarbital causing a prolonged "twilight" stage (minutes) with choking and hemorrhage | Missouri: expert evidence indicates pentobarbital likely produces unconsciousness within similar timeframe; Bucklew's expert testimony was equivocal and relied on a misread horse study; nitrogen could worsen suffering depending on administration | Held: Record lacks evidence that nitrogen would significantly reduce Bucklew's asserted risk; summary judgment for State affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given factual disputes about severity/duration of suffering | Bucklew: factual disputes exist (expert testimony that pain could last minutes) requiring trial | Missouri: Bucklew failed to develop relevant factual record about State's intended procedures and alternative method; evidence favors State's experts | Held: On the whole record, no genuine issue of material fact as to availability and efficacy of an alternative; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (plurality establishing alternative-method test for method-of-execution Eighth Amendment claims)
- Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. (2015) (confirming Baze plurality as controlling and holding an inmate must identify a feasible, readily implemented alternative that significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) (§1983 vehicle for method-of-execution claims; discussed pleading/relief posture)
- Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879) (historical Eighth Amendment analysis distinguishing barbarous methods from permissible execution methods)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (governance on how to treat fractured opinions and plurality controls)