139 S. Ct. 1312
U.S.2019Background
- Christopher Lee Price, convicted in 1999, challenged Alabama’s three-drug lethal-injection protocol as posing a substantial risk of severe pain in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
- Alabama enacted a statute authorizing nitrogen hypoxia as an execution method in June 2018 and gave inmates a 30-day window to elect it; Price did not elect during that window.
- Price filed suit in February–April 2019 seeking a preliminary injunction and a stay of execution, submitting an expert declaration and an Oklahoma study (initially a draft marked “Do Not Cite,” later submitting the final identical report) supporting that nitrogen hypoxia is less painful.
- The District Court found Price likely to succeed on the merits, credited the final report and additional evidence, and entered a 60‑day stay; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the stay pending resolution of jurisdictional questions.
- The State applied to the Supreme Court to vacate the stay; the Court granted the application and vacated the lower courts’ stays. Justice Breyer (joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan) dissented from the grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Price showed a substantial Eighth Amendment risk of severe pain from Alabama’s three‑drug protocol | Price: expert evidence shows current protocol likely causes severe pain | State: no rebuttal evidence submitted to District Court; argued procedural/other defenses before Supreme Court | District Court and Eleventh Circuit found Price met burden; Supreme Court vacated stay (granting State’s application) |
| Whether nitrogen hypoxia is an available, feasible, readily implemented alternative | Price: Oklahoma study and experts show nitrogen hypoxia is humane, painless, and implementable; Alabama had been developing a protocol | State: contended statutory election deadline and other procedural bars; questioned evidence reliability | Lower courts found nitrogen hypoxia available and feasible; Supreme Court’s order vacated stays without resolving merits |
| Whether the Oklahoma report Price relied on was reliable evidence (draft vs final) | Price: final published report is identical to draft and supports humane nature of nitrogen hypoxia | State: emphasized that submitted report was a preliminary draft stamped "Do Not Cite" and thus unreliable | District Court accepted final report as reliable; Court of Appeals initially questioned draft status; Supreme Court did not resolve evidentiary dispute in vacating stay |
| Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to consider Price’s new motion during the pendency of the Eleventh Circuit appeal | Price: presented new evidence and a new motion, so district court retained jurisdiction to act | State: appealed earlier order and argued interlocutory appeal divested district court of power to modify order | Eleventh Circuit found jurisdictional questions substantial and maintained stay; dissent argued jurisdictional issue should be resolved by full Court before vacating stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 503 U.S. 653 (1992) (courts may consider last‑minute nature of stay applications in equitable relief decisions)
- Bowersox v. Williams, 517 U.S. 345 (1996) (caution against vacating stays of execution without full consideration given the irreversibility of the act)