ArticleslgStudy

science

Glossip v. Gross

Glossip v. Gross is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Glossip v. Gross rather than just read about it. In short: Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Glossip v. Gross — main illustration
Glossip v. Gross — illustration

Key takeaways

  • Glossip v. Gross belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect Glossip v. Gross to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of Glossip v. Gross from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.

Background On January 7, 1997, Justin Sneed beat Barry Van Treese to death with a baseball bat. The killing occurred at the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where Van Treese was the owner, Sneed was the maintenance-man, and Richard Glossip was the manager. In exchange for avoiding the death penalty, Sneed confessed and told police that Glossip had instructed him to commit the murder. Glossip insisted on his actual innocence and refused to accept a plea bargain. In July 1998, an Oklahoma jury convicted Glossip of the murder and sentenced him to death. In 2001, the unanimous Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals threw out that conviction, calling the case "extremely weak" and finding Glossip had received unconstitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. In August 2004, a second Oklahoma jury convicted Glossip of the murder and sentenced him to death. Glossip complained that prosecutors had intimidated his defense attorney into resigning, but, in April 2007, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the death sentence, with two judges in the majority, one judge specially concurring, and two judges dissenting. Glossip attracted the advocacy of Sister Helen Prejean, but failed to get the clemency board to consider letters from Sneed's family, who believe Sneed is lying. After a three-justice plurality opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of the sedative sodium thiopental during lethal injections in Baze v. Rees (2008), disconcerted pharmaceutical companies began refusing to supply states with the drug.

Oklahoma replaced the general anaesthetic with an untested off-label use of midazolam, keeping the drug's origin secret. Condemned prisoners Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner sued, and the state trial court found the secrecy law unconstitutional. However, pending an appeal by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals refused to then stay the plaintiffs' imminent executions, so, on April 21, 2014, the Oklahoma Supreme Court did. Faced with conflicting court orders, Governor Mary Fallin decided to disobey the supreme court order, explaining the "attempted stay of execution is outside the constitutional authority of that body". The day after the Oklahoma House of Representatives drafted articles of impeachment against the supreme court justices, the court withdrew its stay of execution and reversed the trial court's holding against the state. On April 29, 2014, Oklahoma used midazolam in the execution of Clayton Lockett. After executioners had performed the lethal injection, Lockett began to struggle on the gurney, reportedly groaning "this shit is fucking with my mind" and "the drugs aren't working." Lockett died forty-three minutes after the lethal injection. Oklahoma decided to delay the execution of Warner, who was scheduled to die later that night. After an investigation, Oklahoma elected to continue using midazolam in executions. On June 25, 2014, Warner, Glossip, and nineteen other Oklahoma death row inmates sued in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging Oklahoma's use of midazolam violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. At the end of a three-day hearing, U.S. District Judge Stephen P. Friot orally denied the condemned prisoners' request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of midazolam in their executions. On January 12, 2015, Tenth Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, joined by (future Supreme Court justice) Neil Gorsuch and Scott Matheson Jr., affirmed.

Supreme Court of the United States On January 13, 2015, the condemned prisoners petitioned for a writ of certiorari and stays of their executions from the U.S. Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that the midazolam, intended to be used as sedative, would not render them unable to feel the pain of the other two drugs. On January 15, 2015, the Court denied lead petitioner Warner's application for a stay of execution, over the written dissent of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Oklahoma executed Warner later that day. However, on January 23, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, staying the surviving petitioners' executions. The proceeding was then renamed, with Richard Glossip as lead petitioner. One hour of arguments were heard on April 29. At oral arguments, four conservative justices expressed impatience with obstructionist unavailability caused, Justice Scalia said, "by the abolitionists putting pressure on the companies that manufacture" the drugs. Justice Alito called this "guerrilla war against the death penalty", and Justice Kennedy insisted to have an answer from the petitioners on whether the court should take this element into account. Four liberal justices, conversely, harshly questioned Oklahoma Solicitor General Patrick Wyrick, with Justice Kagan describing the execution protocol as "burning alive, from the inside."

Opinion of the Court

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Glossip v. Gross: Midazolam
Midazolam
Glossip v. Gross: Justice Samuel Alito found the prisoners "failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment."
Justice Samuel Alito found the prisoners "failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment."
Glossip v. Gross: Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent "I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent "I believe it highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment."

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Glossip v. Gross

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Glossip v. Gross claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Glossip v. Gross before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Glossip v. Gross ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Glossip v. Gross

In research
Glossip v. Gross appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses Glossip v. Gross in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
Glossip v. Gross is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Capital punishment in Oklahoma, Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and death penalty case law, Lethal injection, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for Glossip v. Gross outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.
Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Glossip v. Gross” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Glossip v. Gross in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what Glossip v. Gross means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain Glossip v. Gross out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Glossip v. Gross in simple terms?

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitutio…

Why does Glossip v. Gross matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Glossip v. Gross?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Glossip v. Gross.

Tags

  • Capital punishment in Oklahoma
  • Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and death penalty case law
  • Lethal injection
  • United States Supreme Court cases
  • United States Supreme Court cases in 2015
  • United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court

Keep exploring