Washington - The US Supreme Court dealt a setback to opponents of the death penalty, endorsing Oklahoma's method of lethal injection, and objected to a key Obama administration air pollution regulation as the justices on Monday ended their annual term with acrimony.
The court also upheld a voter-approved plan that stripped Arizona state lawmakers of their role in drawing congressional districts and accepted an important case for its next term, plunging into a another fight over the contentious issue of affirmative action in college admissions.
Monday marked the conclusion of the court's 2014-2015 term. In two big rulings last week, the justices made gay marriage legal nationwide and rejected a conservative challenge to a key element of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.
On Monday, the court ruled 5-4, with its five conservatives in the majority, that a drug used by Oklahoma as part of its lethal injection procedure does not violate the US Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling was a loss for three convicted murders on the state's death row, Richard Glossip, John Grant and Benjamin Cole. They had objected to the use of a sedative called midazolam, saying it cannot achieve the level of unconsciousness required for surgery, making it unsuitable for executions.
The three-drug process used by Oklahoma prison officials has been under scrutiny since the April 2014 botched execution of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett. He could be seen twisting on the gurney after death chamber staff failed to place the intravenous line properly.
The case did not address the constitutionality of the death penalty in general, but it brought fresh attention to the ongoing debate over whether the death penalty should continue in the United States. The main question before the nine justices was whether the use of midazolam violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the first time indicated they believe the death penalty is unconstitutional.
“We believe it highly likely that the death penalty now violates the Eighth Amendment,” Breyer said in a statement he read from the bench.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia called Breyer's arguments full of “internal contradictions” and “gobbledy-gook.”
In another 5-4 ruling with the court's conservatives in the majority, the justices found the Obama administration should have considered the cost of compliance when it decided to limit emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants mainly from coal-fired power plants. The ruling was a setback for the administration and left the legal status of the regulation in limbo.
The rule stays in effect for the time being, with the case returning to an appeals court, which will decide whether or not it should be thrown out.
The legal rationale adopted by the court is unlikely to have broader implications for other environmental regulations, including the administration's Clean Power Plan that would cut carbon emissions from existing power plants, according to lawyers following the case.
The Arizona ruling determined the fate of the state's bid to remove partisan politics from the process of drawing districts for its members of the US House of Representatives.
In this 5-4 ruling, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court's four liberals in backing an independent commission approved by the state's voters to draw the districts.
The court ruled that the ballot initiative did not violate the US Constitution's requirement that state legislatures set congressional district boundaries. The ruling could pave the way for more states to adopt similar procedures. Six other states, including California, already have independent commissions.
Critics say partisan “gerrymandering” leads to House of Representatives districts being drawn in a way intended to give the party controlling the legislature the maximum number of seats possible while marginalizing voters favoring the other party.
Looking ahead to their next term that begins in October, the justices agreed to take up for a second time a challenge to the process for picking students used by the University of Texas.
The justices will hear a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant denied admission to the entering class of 2008.
Reuters