If it is ruled to be unconstitutional it would probably be ruled as being against the provision in the Constitution that provides that there should be no cruel and unusual punishment.
What do you think does happen when a procedure is ruled unconstitutional?
It's no longer allowed to be done, right?
I'm just confused on the exact order of it.
Inmates claim lethal injection is unconstitutional,
supreme court agrees to hear the case.
What does the state do in all of this
If something is determined to be unlawful under the provisions of the federal constitution, the same practice cannot be legal in any US political jurisdiction, such as in any state.
So what is the states responsibilty in all of this? Obviously there are those who are pro-death penalty.
How is would an inmate go about his claim?
Whether to impose the death penalty is up to each state. The majority of states have a death penalty.
If the Supreme Court declares execution by lethal injection violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Constitution, then states will not be able to use this method. But they still will be able to use other methods of killing prisoners.
Lethal injections are currently legal in the Unites States.
About two weeks ago the Supreme Court decided to hear the cases of two Kentucky death row prisoners who claimed that his type of execution was unconstitutional.
Since the issue of lethal injections will be coming up for Supreme Court ruling states have opted not to continue with this type of execution. This may affect the vast majority of executions since six out of seven executions are done by lethal injection. They will either await the decision or will choose another form of execution.
The Supreme Court will not be ruling in this case if any execution is illegal but will only rule if lethal injections are illegal.