Whether a prisoner challenging a midazolam three-drug lethal-injection protocol must prove with scientific evidence that the first drug is sure or very likely to fail to prevent serious pain

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a prisoner challenging a midazolam three-drug lethal-injection protocol must, as the Sixth Circuit requires, “prove” with “scientific evidence” that the first drug is “sure or very likely to fail to prevent serious pain”—an unattainable standard given the impossibility of clinically testing whether a massive overdose of a sedative will fail to block pain—or whether the prisoner meets his Eighth Amendment burden by showing that the protocol poses a “substantial risk of serious harm,” as this Court articulated the standard in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (plurality opinion), and Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015), and as petitioner showed here. 2. Whether Glossip’s requirement of an alternative method of execution that “significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain” requires the elimination of all pain from an execution, or is satisfied by a proposal to remove one of two distinct types of pain that the execution method will inflict. @)