State Government Supreme Court Ruling Will Renew Executions in Florida

BRADENTON — On Monday, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of midazolam, the controversial drug used by Florida and many other states for execution by lethal-injection. As a result of the ruling, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is asking the Florida Supreme Court to lift its halt on executions.

Though the 5-4 ruling was in favor of the sedative's use, the case made history in that two dissenting justices said they feel that it is likely that the death penalty itself is unconstitutional. Justices Breyer and Ginsberg indicated that it seems impossible to implement capital punishment in a way that does not run afoul of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The case had originated in Oklahoma, where a prisoner regained consciousness and started speaking midway through his execution after being injected with midazolam. Three Oklahoma inmates then argued that the drug could not achieve an adequate level of unconsciousness, making severe pain and suffering likely.  

The drug, a short-acting central nervous system depressant of the benzodiazepine class, was introduced to replace pentobarbital, after its manufacturer disallowed that drug's use in lethal injection cocktails.

In execution cocktails, midazolam acts as a sedative to render the prisoner unconscious. Vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride are then administered to stop the prisoner's breathing and heart. The drug has also been blamed for similarly botched executions in Ohio and Arizona.

Florida, which has the second largest population of death row inmates in the nation, used midazolam to execute William Happ in October 2013. In February, the Florida Supreme Court prevented the state from executing Jerry Correll, who was convicted in 1986 of stabbing his ex-wife, their daughter and his wife's mother and sister in Orlando, because of the pending case. State officials have not indicated whether they will seek an alternative to midazolam for future executions.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the case failed to meet thresholds created by precedent rulings in terms of the method's likelihood of causing undue injury or suffering or the availability of better and feasible alternative methods. It also ruled that the 8th Amendment did not mean executions had to be pain free.

"Because it is settled that capital punishment is constitutional, it necessarily follows that there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out," wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the court. "And because some risk of pain is inherent in any method of execution, we have held that the Constitution does not require the avoidance of all risk of pain."