|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-8151||8th Cir.||Nov 6, 2018||Apr 1, 2019||5-4||Gorsuch||OT 2018|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.
Holding: Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on April 1, 2019. Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to all but Part III. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 15 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 16, 2018)|
|Mar 15 2018||Application (17A911) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.|
|Mar 16 2018||Brief of respondents Anne Precythe, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 19 2018||Reply of petitioner Russell Bucklew filed.|
|Mar 20 2018||Application (17A911) referred to the Court.|
|Mar 20 2018||Application (17A911) granted by the Court. The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Gorsuch and by him referred to the Court is granted pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would deny the application for stay of execution.|
|Mar 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/13/2018.|
|Apr 06 2018||Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 16 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/20/2018.|
|Apr 23 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/27/2018.|
|Apr 30 2018||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. In addition to the questions presented in the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following Question: Whether petitioner met his burden under Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. ____ (2015), to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the State's method of execution.|
|May 08 2018||Motion for an extension of time filed.|
|May 16 2018||Motion to extend the time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including July 16, 2018.|
|Jun 26 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Russell Bucklew|
|Jul 06 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Anne Precythe, et al.|
|Jul 16 2018||Brief of petitioner Russell Bucklew filed.|
|Jul 16 2018||Joint appendix (2 volumes) filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 16 2018||Petitioner's Unopposed Motion to File Joint Appendix -- Volume III Under Seal of Russell Bucklew not accepted for filing. (Amended motion submitted.) (August 15, 2018)|
|Jul 20 2018||Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Jul 23 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Pharmacy, Medicine, and Health Policy Experts filed.|
|Jul 23 2018||Brief amici curiae of Former Corrections Officials filed.|
|Jul 23 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Association for Accessible Medicines in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 23 2018||Brief amici curiae of Scholars and Academics of Constitutional Law filed.|
|Jul 23 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Megan McCracken and Jennifer Moreno filed.|
|Jul 23 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Former Judges and Prosecutors filed.|
|Jul 23 2018||Brief amicus curiae of American Medical Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Aug 15 2018||Motion to file Volume III of the joint appendix under seal with redacted copy of transcript for public record filed by petitioner Russell Bucklew.|
|Aug 15 2018||Brief of respondent Anne Precythe, et al. filed.|
|Aug 20 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 6, 2018|
|Aug 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.|
|Aug 22 2018||Brief amici curiae of States of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 22 2018||Brief amici curiae of Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, Inc., and Melissa Sanders filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 06 2018||Lodging proposal of petitioner filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 10 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Sep 10 2018||Opposition of respondent to lodging proposal of petitioner filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 12 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 14 2018||Reply of petitioner Russell Bucklew filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 19 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. The record is complete. (1 Box).|
|Oct 01 2018||Motion to file Volume III of the joint appendix under seal with redacted copy of transcript for public record GRANTED.|
|Oct 19 2018||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Russell Bucklew.|
|Oct 31 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.|
|Nov 06 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Robert Hochman, Chicago, Ill. For respondents: D. John Sauer, State Solicitor, Jefferson City, Mo.|
|Nov 19 2018||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED, and Cheryl A. Pilate, Esquire, of Kansas City, Missouri, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Apr 01 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., and Kavanaugh, J., filed concurring opinions. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined as to all but Part III. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|May 03 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Aug 05 2019||the record from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit has been returned.|
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.