[6] Bucklew and other convicts with death sentences across the country attempted to legally challenge states' refusal to use other protocols besides lethal injection through the courts, arguing that this was a violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.

This ultimately resulted in Baze v. Rees, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008, where it was determined that lethal injection by drugs was constitutional and did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

[1] Further, Baze established a test for future challenges to methods of execution under the Eighth Amendment, in that inmates must show that a "feasible, readily implemented" alternative procedure that would "significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain".

With the decision in Baze, the Supreme Court invalidated the other ongoing challenges, including that of Bucklew, and ordered states who had already gained approval for lethal injection to resume executions.

[9] Prior to the rehearing, the Supreme Court concluded in Glossip v. Gross in 2015 that affirmed the Baze requirement that an Eighth Amendment challenge to capital punishment puts the onus on inmates to show that there exists an alternative that is "feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain.

Gorsuch argued that inmates that were seeking alternative methods under the Baze/Glossip test in good faith should readily be able to show evidence for their case, and considered that Bucklew's continuing challenges were stalling tactics.

Thomas argued that under the Eighth Amendment, the Court only had to show that Missouri's choice of death sentence was not purposely designed to inflict additional pain on the inmate.

[12] Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion, urging that there is no reason to rush execution sentences, particularly to avoid having any judicial mistakes harm the impact of the Constitution.