Decisions. Court rules on lethal injection challenges

UPDATE 10:35 a.m.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that death row inmates seeking to challenge the lethal injection method of execution may pursue the issue as a civil rights claim, a broader option than federal habeas. The ruling came in Hill v. McDonough (05-8794). While not ruling itself on the constitutionality of that execution procedure, the Court said that inmates who contend that the three-drug protocol most commonly used causes unnecessary pain and suffering may go forward with an Eighth Amendment claim under the 1871 civil rights statute, so-called Section 1983.

The decision involved Clarence Hill, a Floridian on death row for first-degree murder. He filed a civil rights challenge to the execution protocol, but his case was rejected, on the theory that it essentially was a federal habeas challenge, and he had used up his opportunities to bring such a challenge. In overturning that result Monday, the Supreme Court relied upon a 2004 decision, Nelson v. Campbell, allowing an inmate to challenge an invasive surgical procedure as part of the lethal injection process. The Court said Hill’s claim — the identical one that death row inmates across the nation are making — was like Nelson’s in its essential particulars, so it must be treated as a civil rights challenge.

Although this clears the way for continuing challenges by virtually any inmate in the states using lethal injection protocols, those complaints have not fared well on the merits, and have frequently been rejected. The Supreme Court itself has denied review repeatedly of that issue on the merits.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that decision, and also was the author of the only other ruling of the day in an argued case. The Court decided in that other case that a Tennessee death row inmate has made a sufficient showing on his claim of innocence based on new evidence so that his case may proceed in federal habeas court. The ruling came in House v. Bell (04-8990). The ruling was highly fact-bound, and thus did not appear to alter the standards the Court uses for judging “actual innocence” claims as an exception to the tight rules against repeated habeas challenges.

The Court plans to issue more decisions on Thursday of this week, and is expected to have more than one decision day next week as it begins its push toward summer recess near the end of the month.