October Term 2007 · Docket 07-5439
Does Kentucky's three-drug lethal injection protocol violate the Eighth Amendment?
the sides that brought the case claim the state's execution method risks severe pain. The state argues proper administration prevents suffering.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Verrilli argued Kentucky's procedures pose a danger of cruel executions.
Mr. Englert agreed that proper administration of the first drug prevents pain.
Chief Justice Roberts noted an expert agreed proper administration yields a humane death.
Justice Kennedy asked if an argument exists assuming perfect administration.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a specific chemical protocol for execution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The dispute centers on the risk of pain during the process.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-39
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 7, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the three-drug protocol as unconstitutional.
The state wants the Court to uphold the current execution method.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-39
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the protocol poses a danger of cruel and inhumane executions.
The state argues proper administration of the first drug ensures a painless death.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-39
What the justices asked
Justice Breyer asked about the specific dosage of the first drug.
Justice Ginsburg asked if adequate monitoring could eliminate all risk of error.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Why it matters
The outcome defines the constitutional limits on state execution methods. It determines whether procedural safeguards satisfy Eighth Amendment standards. The ruling sets a precedent for future challenges to lethal injection protocols.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-39
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-15
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 45-39 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 45-39
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.