Whether under Glossip v. Gross, inmates raising a facial challenge to one of two methods contained in a State's lethal injection protocol must present evidence of the availability of the alternate method independent from any evidence within the State's possession

QUESTIONS PRESENTED IL. Whether under Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015), inmates raising a facial challenge to one of two methods contained in a State’s lethal injection protocol must present evidence of the availability of the alternate method independent from any evidence within the State’s possession. II. Whether, under Glossip, supra, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the state court may refuse to consider compelling, uncontested evidence of a known and available alternative because the alternative was not pled in a facial challenge to a prior lethal injection protocol. i