The document discusses three Supreme Court cases relating to the Eighth Amendment and equal protection under the law: 1) Glossip v. Gross - The Court upheld Oklahoma's use of lethal injection, but the first drug may not prevent pain from the subsequent drugs. This allows unequal treatment of inmates across states. 2) Brumfield v. Cain - The Court found an inmate could challenge a finding that he was not intellectually disabled, but there is no agreed definition for this. Determining disability was put to a majority vote. 3) Davis v. Ayala - The Court ruled against a claim of racial bias in jury selection, but exclusion of jurors could still be an "harmless error." It

1. Surname 1
Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Equal Protection: Supreme Court Rulings
The Eighth Amendment to US Constitution reads, “Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. This
law seeks to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected under the law. The principle of
innocence until proven guilty is enhanced by the Eighth Amendment, whereby a person under
trial is given an opportunity to carry with normal life while on trial. Excessive bail terms
condemns the person to undue financial discomfort since he may not be able to raise the
resources to commit as bail.
Fines are a form of punishment. Usually, a convicted person is given handed an
option of a fine or a jail term. The advantage of paying a fine is that the person is given an
opportunity to carry on with his normal life after being convicted. An excessive fine would
limited the convicted person’s choice of either paying the fine or going to jail. It is this right
of choice that the Eighth Amendment seeks to protect. On unusual punishments, the Eight
ensures that a convicted person is treated humanely.
The Supreme Court session of October 2014 ruled on different cases that touch on this
important issue of equal protection. While reviewing the session, Ching looks at the case
Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955 (April 29, 2015). In this case, the Supreme Court upholds the
decision of Oklahoma to adopt a lethal injection as its method of execution. Ching argues that
this is a serious flaw in the provisions of the law. The State of Oklahoma uses three-drug

2. Surname 2
protocol in executions. The first drug in the protocol is Midazolam which does not have any
anaesthetic effect. Therefore the administration of the second and third lethal drugs amounts
to inhuman treatment since by then, the convict is still conscious and is subjected to
unnecessary painful treatment. According to Ching, this is a violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
In his analysis, Ching defaults the Supreme Court for the ruling. First, he argues that
the ruling negates the principle of standard punishment under the same law. The Eighth
Amendment states that death penalty is legal, but not all methods of enforcing it are legal.
Therefore the raises the question of who should determine the legality of the method. What
happens in case a convict is not able to challenge the method of execution in court? If this
ruling is to be upheld, then different states would apply different methods of execution while
stating the same law. This is tantamount to unequal application of the law to individuals
under the same legal jurisdiction.
Other issue that comes up in the ruling is the ability of the convict to establish an
alternative drug formula. Ching summarizes the constitutional defects in the ruling as
follows: 1) it is seriously unreliable, 2) its application is arbitrary and 3) the long delays
caused by the drugs may undermine the penological purpose of death sentence. The mere fact
that this ruling can be used arbitrarily negates the very principle of equal protection for all.
Professor Christy H. DeSanctis revisits the Brumfield v. Cain No. 13-1433 case. This
was a case dealing with intellectual disability. The ruling of the Supreme Court was that “the
federal district court was entitled to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether
Kevan Brumfield has intellectual disability and is therefore ineligible for execution”.
DeSanctis explains that whereas nobody should be granted special treatment at trial, the case
of intellectual disability is a special one. However, he has doubts whether the term

3. Surname 3
"intellectual disability” is universal. The author argues that unless there is a universally
agreed definition of intellectual disability, this would amount to special treatment and
therefore negate the principle of equal protection for all.
DeSanctis also takes issue with the fact that this matter was put to vote. The Supreme
Court voted 5-4 to overturn the ruling by Louisiana had not been reasonable in determining
the facts that Brumfield was intellectually disabled. At this point, the author wonders whether
a majority vote can render one intellectually disabled or not. He argues that such facts must
be left too competent professionals who can objectively determine these facts. He also takes
issue the measure used to determine one’s intellect. At what stage could one be adjudge to be
intellectually disabled? What if the disability is temporary, should the convict be brought
back for retrial once he recovers? This case brings many questions regarding equal protection
of individual rights. The fact that one can claim to be intellectually disabled and these facts
confirmed by a majority vote of the jury is a violation of justice. This claim may delay or
even defeat justice all together.
What happens when an inmate claims that he has been unfairly treated based on his
race? The case Davis v. Ayala, No. 13-1428. The court ruled against Hector Ayala’s claims
that prosecutors had “acted improperly by excluding all seven black and Hispanic potential
jurors from his trial”. The matter was decided with a 5-4 vote. Greg Mermelstein revisits this
case. The author faults the ruling as a breach to the rights of Mr Ayala. The right to choose
representatives must be protected under the law, unless there is reason to believe that the
choice would breach the rights of others. In this case, there was no reason to believe that
Ayala’s choice would cause harm to anyone else.
But further probe into the claim by Ayala brings a twist into the case. How could the
claimant prove that the exclusion was done in bad faith? Motive is one aspect that is hard to

4. Surname 4
prove, unless there is an outcome. Had the Supreme held the claim, then it would have set a
bad precedent where anyone would come with such claims and seek the courts favour.
In its ruling the Supreme Court admitted that the prosecutors could have erred in
excluding the jurors, but such exclusion was a “harmless error”. When does an error become
harmful? How does the offended get retribution in case the error is harmful? What if, in the
event of a “harmful error”, the offended party is not able to challenge the error in court?
The three cases to touch on the core of the Eighth Amendment of the US constitution
that guarantees fair treatment to persons facing trial. Their rights, just like the rights of any
other person must be protected. The first case (Glossip v. Gross), the Supreme Court’s ruling
sets allows different states to arbitrarily choose the method they find fit to execute death row
convicts. The fact that there is no universally accepted method negates the principle of equal
protection of rights. In the case Brumfield v. Cain, it is not easy to measure one’s intellectual
disability, therefore there could never be one sure way of treating people who claim to be
intellectually disabled. The last case also negates the principle of equal protection since there
is no way to ascertain the harm caused by an error.

5. Surname 5
Work Cited
Ching, James. “Supreme Court Pre-Argument Analysis - Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955
(April 29, 2015), “Objectively Intolerable Risk of Harm” Created by Execution Drug.
Law.com. http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2015/04/19/supreme-court-pre-argument-
analysis-glossip-v-gross-no-14-7955-april-29-2015-objectively-intolerable-risk-of-harm-
created-by-execution-drug/
DeSanctis, Christy. Brumfield v. Cain. George Washington Law Review Jun 2015.
http://www.gwlr.org/brumfield-v-cain/
Mermelstein, Greg. Davis v. Ayala – Trial Court’s Exclusion of Defense Counsel from
Batson Hearing Was “Harmless Error” in Federal Habeas. National Association for Public
Defense June 24, 2015. http://publicdefenders.us/?q=node/814