More than a dozen former state attorneys general on Tuesday asked [press release] the US Supreme Court to rule Oklahoma’s use of the three-drug execution cocktail unconstitutional. The attorneys general argue that this type of execution violates the constitutional rights of three death row inmates scheduled for execution. In an amicus brief [text, PDF] organized by the Constitution Project [advocacy website], the former state officials argued that Oklahoma’s use of midazolam, a sedation drug, as a part of its lethal injection protocol does not properly induce unconsciousness. Officials claim that this may result in an extremely painful death, which would be a violation of the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The officials claim that there are other alternatives that can be used instead of the three-drug cocktail. On January 28, the court blocked Oklahoma from using midazolam until it can decide the case of the inmates, Richard Glossip, John Grant and Benjamin Cole Sr.

The controversy [JURIST op-ed] surrounding the contents of lethal injection drugs and execution protocol in the US has been a mainstream issue in politics and in courts around the US. In January Ohio’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction [official website] announced [JURIST report] that it is revising its execution protocol to no longer use the two-drug combination that caused the troubling 26-minute execution of Dennis McGuire last January. Last April Oklahoma’s execution by lethal injection of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett went awry [JURIST report]. According to witnesses, 13 minutes after being injected with the drug cocktail, the inmate appeared to regain consciousness and experience pain. Lockett died of a heart attack 27 minutes after state officials called off the execution. Use of the three-drug cocktail has also led to problematic executions in Ohio and Arizona.