Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Bucklew v. Precythe

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-8151	8th Cir.	Nov 6, 2018 Tr.Aud.	TBD	TBD	TBD	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.

Issues: (1) Whether a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state’s method of execution based on an inmate’s rare and severe medical condition should assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that procedure will go as intended; (2) whether evidence comparing a state’s method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate must be offered via a single witness, or whether a court at summary judgment must look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate; (3) whether the Eighth Amendment requires an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state’s proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition; and (4) whether petitioner Russell Bucklew met his burden under Glossip v. Gross 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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

OT2018 #7: "Now Who's the Legal Realist?" (First Mondays)
Argument analysis: Relatively subdued court is divided in lethal-injection case (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Justices to consider another lethal-injection challenge, this time by inmate with complicated medical history (Amy Howe)
OT2018 #0: "Looks A Lot Like Grift" (First Mondays)
Criminal cases in the October 2018 term: A law professor’s dream (Rory Little)
OT2017 #24: "Kudos To Whoever Did This" (First Mondays)
Justices add three new cases to next term’s docket (Amy Howe)
Justices block Missouri execution (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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	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 16 2018	Joint appendix (2 volumes) filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Jul 20 2018	Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.
Jul 23 2018	Brief amicus curiae of American Medical Association in support of neither party filed.
Jul 23 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Megan McCracken and Jennifer Moreno filed.
Jul 23 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Pharmacy, Medicine, and Health Policy Experts filed.
Jul 23 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Association for Accessible Medicines in support of neither party filed.
Jul 23 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Former Judges and Prosecutors filed.
Jul 23 2018	Brief amici curiae of Scholars and Academics of Constitutional Law filed.
Jul 23 2018	Brief amici curiae of Former Corrections Officials filed.
Aug 15 2018	Brief of respondent Anne Precythe, et al. 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 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.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Justices uphold arbitration exemption for transportation workers in rare victory for arbitration opponents – Ronald Mann

Argument analysis: When is the government not really the government for immunity from tort liability? – Gregory Sisk

Argument analysis: Quiescent bench dubious about broad fee awards in copyright cases – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 41

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	41
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Bucklew v. Precythe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Justices uphold arbitration exemption for transportation workers in rare victory for arbitration opponents – Ronald Mann

Argument analysis: When is the government not really the government for immunity from tort liability? – Gregory Sisk

Argument analysis: Quiescent bench dubious about broad fee awards in copyright cases – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 11, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award