Bucklew v. Precythe

E649390

Bucklew v. Precythe is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Missouri’s method of execution against an Eighth Amendment challenge, clarifying the standards for inmates claiming that a particular execution protocol would cause them severe pain.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (47)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Eighth Amendment case
United States Supreme Court case
capital punishment case
areaOfLaw constitutional law
criminal procedure
death penalty jurisprudence
argumentDate 2018-11-06
challengedMethodOfExecution lethal injection using pentobarbital
citation 587 U.S. ___ (2019)
constitutionalProvision Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate 2019-04-01
dissentingOpinionBy Elena Kagan NERFINISHED
Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED
Sonia Sotomayor NERFINISHED
Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED
docketNumber No. 17-8151
holding Inmates bringing method-of-execution challenges must identify a feasible, readily implemented alternative method that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain
Missouri’s method of execution did not violate the Eighth Amendment as applied to Bucklew
The alternative method of execution need not be authorized under current state law
impact clarified that as-applied method-of-execution challenges follow the same framework as facial challenges
raised the evidentiary burden on inmates challenging methods of execution
jurisdiction Missouri NERFINISHED
legalIssue Eighth Amendment challenge to method of execution
constitutionality of Missouri’s lethal injection protocol
standard for as-applied method-of-execution challenges
majorityJoin Brett M. Kavanaugh NERFINISHED
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED
John G. Roberts, Jr. NERFINISHED
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. NERFINISHED
majorityOpinionBy Neil Gorsuch NERFINISHED
petitioner Russell Bucklew NERFINISHED
petitionerClaim Missouri’s lethal injection protocol would cause him severe pain due to his rare medical condition
petitionerCondition cavernous hemangioma
precedentCited Baze v. Rees NERFINISHED
Glossip v. Gross NERFINISHED
principle Method-of-execution challenges are disfavored when brought late in the process
The Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death
proposedAlternativeMethod execution by nitrogen hypoxia
respondent Anne L. Precythe NERFINISHED
respondentOffice Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections
resultForPetitioner relief denied
standardClarified Glossip v. Gross alternative-method requirement applies to as-applied challenges
state Missouri
term October Term 2018
vote 5-4

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Glossip v. Gross relatedCase Bucklew v. Precythe