Buntion v. Lumpkin

_________________
_________________
1 Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022)
Statement of B
REYER, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 21A632
CARL WAYNE BUNTION v. BOBBY LUMPKIN,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[April 21, 2022]
The application for stay of execution of sentence of death
presented to J
USTICE ALITO and by him referred to the
Court is denied.
Statement of J
USTICE BREYER respecting the denial of ap-
plication for stay.
This case illustrates a serious legal and practical problem
with the death penalty as it is currently administered. As
I have previously noted, Carl Wayne Buntion has been on
death row under threat of execution for 30 years. Buntion
v. Lumpkin, 595 U. S. ___ (2021) (statement respecting de-
nial of certiorari). Twenty of those years, he tells us, were
spent in solitary confinement. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1). We
have described even four weeks of waiting in prison under
the threat of execution as “one of the most horrible feelings
to which [a person] can be subjected.” In re Medley, 134
U. S. 160, 172 (1890). Buntion has suffered under such con-
ditions for decades. When efforts to administer the death
penalty produce results such as this, it raises serious ques-
tions about whether that practice complies with the Consti-
tution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
I have expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the
death penalty in the past, and I am compelled to do so again
in light of the facts and history of Buntion’s case. See, e.g.,

2 BUNTION v. LUMPKIN
Statement of B
REYER, J.
Hamm v. Dunn, 583 U. S. ___ (2018) (statement respecting
denial of application for stay and denial of certiorari); Smith
v. Ryan, 581 U. S. ___ (2017) (statement respecting denial
of certiorari); Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. 863, 908 (2015)
(dissenting opinion).