Justice Sonia Sotomayor is Troubled, and Voting Yes Anyway
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is troubled. She wants you to know that. In her statement accompanying the Supreme Court’s denial of a stay of execution for Melvin Trotter, she spends four pages cataloguing her concerns about Florida’s secretive, potentially botched execution practices…expired drugs, incorrect doses, nonprotocol substances, suspicious recordkeeping gaps. It is, frankly, a damning indictment of a state that may be torturing people to death behind a veil of bureaucratic opacity.
And then she voted to let it happen anyway.
This is the peculiar moral theater of the modern Supreme Court concurrence-in-denial: a justice using the platform of a death warrant to register discomfort, accumulate credibility as a thoughtful jurist, and ultimately do nothing. Sotomayor acknowledges that Florida has constructed an impossible trap for prisoners…denying them the records they need to prove an Eighth Amendment violation while simultaneously dismissing their claims for lack of evidence. She sees the rigged game clearly. She describes it plainly. And then she plays it against Melvin Trotter anyway.
The Evidentiary Bar Nobody Can Clear
The intellectual honesty, one supposes, is admirable. She does not pretend the record is clean. She admits it is “troubling.” She concedes the “possibility” of expired drugs, wrong doses, and concealed failures. But somewhere between “troubling possibility of unconstitutional torture” and “I vote to deny,” Justice Sotomayor has decided that the Court’s precedents tie her hands…specifically Glossip v. Gross, which requires a showing that suffering is “sure or very likely” before the Eighth Amendment is triggered.
Here is the problem: that standard was always going to be impossible to meet when the state controls all the evidence and the courts are blocking access to it. Sotomayor knows this. She says so explicitly. Yet she treats the evidentiary bar as an immovable constraint rather than what it actually is…a legal standard that five justices on this very Court have the power to revisit, narrow, or apply differently in a case of obvious systemic opacity.
What good is a conscience vote that produces the same outcome as no conscience at all? A dissent that results in an execution is not moral courage…it is moral credentialing. It says: history will record that I was bothered. It does not say: I used the power I have to stop what I believe may be wrong.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Concurrence in the Killing
To be fair, Sotomayor may lack the votes. A solo dissent from a stay denial would not have saved Trotter. But the statement she wrote is not even a dissent…it is a concurrence in the killing, dressed in the language of regret. She could have dissented from the denial. She could have called on her colleagues to engage with the impossible evidentiary bind she identifies. She could have used this statement to build a legal framework for future challenges rather than simply expressing hope that “Florida and its courts” will do better.
Instead, she offers a wish. Florida should be more transparent. Florida should care about needless suffering. Florida, presumably, should feel a little embarrassed.
Florida will not feel embarrassed. States executing people under cover of secrecy are not moved by the expressed discomfort of justices who nonetheless sign off on the execution.
The cruelest irony in Sotomayor’s statement is its final paragraph, where she warns that Florida’s secrecy undermines “this Court’s ability to ensure the State’s compliance with its constitutional obligations.” But the Court just demonstrated, in real time, that it is perfectly capable of letting an execution proceed despite documented evidence of potential constitutional violations. Florida is not undermining the Court’s oversight capacity. The Court is abdicating it…and writing thoughtful statements about that abdication does not constitute oversight.
The Floor Keeps Moving
And here’s what nobody wants to say directly: this gets easier every time. Each execution that goes forward under these murky conditions…expired drugs maybe, wrong doses maybe, who knows because the records are sealed…becomes the new baseline. The Constitution doesn’t get reinterpreted in dramatic reversals. It erodes. A court that allows this today is not just deciding Trotter’s case. It’s quietly moving the floor of what the Eighth Amendment tolerates, one denied stay at a time, until the next prisoner trying to prove an unconstitutional execution is arguing against a much longer history of the Court having looked the other way.
That’s the part Sotomayor’s statement almost gets to but doesn’t. She’s worried about Florida’s next execution. She should be worried about the Court’s. Because every time a justice writes “I find this troubling” and signs off anyway, they are participating in that normalization whether they intend to or not. The statement becomes part of the record. The record becomes precedent. The precedent becomes the wall that the next death row prisoner has to climb. Trotter’s case won’t be a cautionary tale. It’ll be a citation.
Melvin Trotter is dead or will be shortly. Justice Sotomayor is on record as having found this troubling.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In