Controversial Execution Method: Death Row Inmate Challenges Court Decision

Judge with gavel and Supreme Court nameplate.

Georgia death row inmate Michael Nance’s bid for execution by firing squad faces another setback as a federal judge rejects his request.

Quick Takes

U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee ruled against Nance’s request for execution by firing squad.
Nance argued lethal injection would cause cruel and unusual punishment due to his medical conditions.
The judge found insufficient evidence that lethal injection would cause severe pain for Nance.
Nance’s lawyers plan to appeal the decision, potentially reigniting debate on execution methods.
The case highlights ongoing legal challenges to execution protocols across the United States.

Judge Denies Firing Squad Request

In a significant development for death penalty cases, U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee has denied Georgia death row inmate Michael Wade Nance’s request to be executed by firing squad. Nance, convicted of a 1993 murder and sentenced to death in 1997, had argued that lethal injection would violate his constitutional rights due to his compromised veins and potential ineffectiveness of the sedative used.

Judge Boulee ruled that Nance failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that lethal injection would cause him severe pain. This decision comes after a complex legal journey that saw the case reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which had previously ruled in Nance’s favor on a procedural matter.

Michael Wade Nance, on Georgia's death row for a 1993 murder, argued that lethal injection could cause him severe pain due to his medical history and proposed a firing squad as an alternative. https://t.co/KBZMP27iTc

— FOX 5 Atlanta (@FOX5Atlanta) February 15, 2025

Supreme Court’s Earlier Ruling

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made a significant 5-4 decision allowing Nance to challenge Georgia’s lethal injection protocol under federal civil rights law. This ruling, led by Justice Elena Kagan, overturned a previous decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that had rejected Nance’s claims stating, “Nance’s requested relief still places his execution in Georgia’s control. If Georgia wants to carry out the death sentence, it can enact legislation approving what a court has found to be a fairly easy-to-employ method of execution.”

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized that Section 1983 of federal civil rights law can be used to compel changes in state laws to protect federal constitutional rights. This ruling opened the door for Nance to pursue his claim that lethal injection would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in his case.

Medical Evidence and Legal Standards

Despite Nance’s arguments about his medical condition, the recent ruling by Judge Boulee found that the evidence presented did not meet the high legal standard required to challenge an execution method. A state doctor testified that Nance had undergone medical procedures requiring IVs without issues, contradicting claims about his compromised veins.

The judge’s decision highlights the stringent requirements set by the Supreme Court for challenging execution methods. Inmates must not only prove a substantial risk of harm from the proposed method but also provide feasible alternatives. In this case, the judge did not even address the firing squad argument due to the lack of evidence for severe pain from lethal injection.

Future Implications and Appeals

Nance’s lawyers have announced their intention to appeal this latest decision, potentially prolonging the legal battle and further delaying his execution. This case continues to raise important questions about the constitutionality of execution methods and the rights of death row inmates to challenge them.

As the case moves forward, it will likely continue to spark debate on the balance between state execution protocols and inmates’ constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how death penalty cases are handled across the United States, potentially influencing future legislation and legal challenges to execution methods.