The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear Abu-Ali Abdur Rahman's case challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee's lethal injection procedure. This is despite the fact that one of the drugs, pavulon, used in Tennessee's procedure has been banned for use in putting animals to sleep. Apparently, the Supreme Court cares less about the life of a human being than about that of a dog. You can read more at: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_4717932,00.html

Despite this, challenges to lethal injection procedures are proceeding around the country, and the Supreme Court will decide the case of Hill v. McCormack this session, challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection.

Of course Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers released a statement saying, "It [the United States Supreme Court's decision] serves to confirm what my office has long argued ...." Unfortunately, the AG's statement is a trifle misleading. The Court's denial of a cert. petition does not "serve to confirm" anything and certainly does not reflect the Court's views about the merits of the case. The Supreme Court grants cert. in a very small percentage of cases, and its decision to review or not review a case is completely discretionary. Particularly considering that the court is already hearing a very similar issue, the Supreme Court's denial of a cert. petition cannot be cited as any kind of legal authority on any kind of legal issue.