Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits execution by nitrogen hypoxia that causes prolonged conscious suffering and asphyxiation when a less painful alternative method of execution exists

No question identified. : To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit: The State of Alabama has scheduled the execution by nitrogen hypoxia of Petitioner Anthony Boyd for October 23, 2025. On October 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari presenting two unresolved questions concerning the proper application of the comparative analysis set forth in Glossip, Baze, and Bucklew: (i) when performing a comparative analysis to determine whether an alternative means of execution would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe physical and psychological pain, should the comparison focus only fear and anxiety experienced after the introduction of the fatal stimulus or also include the fear and anxiety leading up to the introduction of the fatal stimulus?; and (ii) does the State of Alabama’s nitrogen hypoxia execution protocol, which causes a human to consciously experience symptoms of asphyxiation (air hunger, shortness of breath, aching lungs, elevated heart rate, blood pounding in the ears, the feeling of conscious suffocation or of being trapped deep underwater) for two to seven minutes, constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment where a feasible and readily implemented alternative exists and where that alternative causes a rapid death in which the inmate feels an impact, shock, and numbness, but not pain? For the reasons explained at length in the petition, there is at minimum a reasonable prospect that this Court will grant certiorari on that question and reverse the district court’s denial of Mr. Boyd’s motion for preliminary injunction. Absent a stay, Petitioner will suffer the irreparable harm of being executed pursuant to Alabama’s Nitrogen Hypoxia Protocol (the “Protocol”) and will experience the superadded pain and terror of being asphyxiated while remaining conscious for several minutes at the outset of his execution, despite being likely to prevail on the merits of his claim that the Protocol violates his Eighth Amendment rights. Petitioner respectfully requests a stay of execution pending the Court’s disposition of this case. BACKGROUND In 2018, the Alabama Legislature authorized execution by an untested method: nitrogen hypoxia. See Ala. Code § 15-18-82.1(b)(2). In August 2023, Respondents released a heavily redacted version of the Protocol. The Protocol has been used in six executions since then. Those executions — and what has become known about the conscious pain and suffering that they entail — led Boyd to challenge the Protocol and seek an alternative method of execution. On June 11, 2025, the Attorney General moved the Alabama Supreme Court to authorize the Governor to set an execution time frame for Boyd to be executed, by means of the Protocol. On July 16, 2025 — and before his execution date had been set — Boyd filed suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Alabama’s Protocol violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Two days later, on July 18, 2025, Boyd’s filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. App.58-236. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on September 4 and 5, 2025. On October 9, 2025, the district court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order (the “Order”) denying Boyd’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.