Whether a state government violates the Eighth Amendment by proceeding with an execution using a cardiac defibrillator that will cause severe pain when deactivation is a readily available option, and whether denying injunctive relief based on a retroactively applied procedural rule is consistent with due process

1. Where a state government facilitated the implantation of a cardiac defibrillator that has been shown to be very likely to result in severe pain during an inmate’s execution, and the inmate has established that deactivating the defibrillator before the execution is an available and readily implemented option, does it violate the Eighth Amendment to proceed with the execution without deactivating the defibrillator? 2. Where an individual facing execution has demonstrated his entitlement to an injunction requiring the State to facilitate a minor medical procedure in order to reduce the unnecessary suffering related to his execution, is it consistent with due process to deny him the benefit of that injunction based on a newly announced, retroactively applied procedural rule that forecloses all possibility of effective relief prior to the execution?