![\"Nitrogen](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/751\/2026\/06\/EIP-BANNER-2.png\")
<\/h2>\n<\/h2>\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit today reversed a lower court ruling and held that Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia execution protocol presents a substantial risk of severe suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment\u2019s prohibition on cruel punishment. The ruling came in the case of Jeffery Lee, a death row prisoner in Alabama whose execution is currently scheduled to begin at midnight on June 11, 2026.<\/p>\n
The Execution Intervention Project, which has worked incessantly to expose the cruelty of nitrogen executions, hailed the decision as the most significant legal development in the fight against this method of killing.<\/p>\n
Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood, author, activist, spiritual advisor to death row prisoners, and a witness to two nitrogen executions, responded directly to the ruling:<\/p>\n
\u201cFor the first time a court has acknowledged what I and so many others have seen with our own eyes\u2026nitrogen executions are a unique form of horror.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The court found that inmates executed under the nitrogen hypoxia protocol consciously experience severe air hunger\u2026emotional distress\u2026panic\u2026physiological stress, and physical discomfort for one to three minutes. In language that will echo through death penalty litigation for years to come, the court declared: \u201cCounting to 60 or 180 seconds is not a quick exercise, and constitutionally speaking, that timeframe is intolerable given the suffering that would likely take place under Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia protocol.\u201d<\/p>\n The Execution Intervention Project has pursued this truth through every available means. We have put up billboards. We have published books. We have traveled the country. We have given countless interviews. We have made a film. We have stood with the condemned. We have named what is happening. Today, a federal court named it too.<\/p>\n The court remanded the case to the district court for immediate consideration of whether execution by firing squad constitutes a feasible alternative to nitrogen hypoxia. No stay of execution has yet been granted, though the door remains open for Jeffrey Lee to seek one as the district court proceeds.<\/p>\n We call on the district court to act swiftly. We call on the state of Alabama to halt this execution. We call on Governor Kay Ivey to recognize that her state is employing a method that a federal court has now found likely produces conscious suffocation for minutes on end.<\/p>\n Most urgently, we pray this ruling is enough to save Jeffrey Lee\u2019s life.<\/p>\n The Eleventh Circuit\u2019s decision does not abolish nitrogen executions outright. It does something equally important: it tells the truth about what nitrogen executions are. It vindicates the testimony of witnesses, survivors, medical experts, spiritual advisors, advocates, prisoners on death row who have watched their brothers die this way, and every person who refused to look away.<\/p>\n The Execution Intervention Project will continue to stand at the intersection of prophetic ministry, legal advocacy, and direct human presence with those the state seeks to kill. We will not stop.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n About the Execution Intervention Project<\/strong><\/p>\n The Execution Intervention Project works at the intersection of capital punishment abolition, prophetic ministry, liberation theology, and direct pastoral accompaniment of death row prisoners.<\/p>\n About Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood<\/strong><\/p>\n Rev. Dr. Jeff Hood is an author, activist, death penalty abolitionist, and spiritual advisor to prisoners on death row. He is the writer of Suffocation by Design: The Story of America\u2019s Newest Execution Method. He has witnessed two nitrogen executions firsthand and has dedicated his ministry to bearing witness to what the state does in the name of justice.<\/p>\n USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 1 of 21<\/p>\n In the<\/p>\n United States Court of Appeals<\/p>\n For the Eleventh Circuit<\/p>\n ____________________<\/p>\n No. 26-11864<\/p>\n ____________________<\/p>\n JEFFERY LEE,<\/p>\n Plainti\ufb00-Appellant,<\/p>\n versus<\/p>\n COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF<\/p>\n CORRECTIONS,<\/p>\n WARDEN, HOLMAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,<\/p>\n Defendants-Appellees.<\/p>\n ____________________<\/p>\n Appeal from the United States District Court<\/p>\n for the Middle District of Alabama<\/p>\n D.C. Docket No. 2:25-cv-00680-ECM<\/p>\n ____________________<\/p>\n Before JORDAN<\/span>, LUCK<\/span>, and KIDD<\/span>, Circuit Judges.<\/p>\n PER CURIAM:<\/p>\n Alabama is one of a number of states\u2014the others are Ar-<\/p>\n kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma\u2014which currently<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 2 of 21<\/p>\n 2 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n authorize nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution. See Ala.<\/p>\n Code \u00a7\u00a7 15-18-82(a), 15-18-82.1(a)\u2013(b). This appeal presents an-<\/p>\n other challenge to the constitutionality of nitrogen hypoxia.<\/p>\n In Grayson v. Comm\u2019r, Ala. Dep\u2019t of Corr., 121 F. 4th 894 (11th<\/p>\n Cir. 2024), we a\ufb03rmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to<\/p>\n prohibit an execution in Alabama by nitrogen hypoxia. Without<\/p>\n determining the merits of the inmate\u2019s Eighth Amendment claim,<\/p>\n we held that, given the evidence in the record and its factual find-<\/p>\n ings, the district court had not abused its discretion in ruling that<\/p>\n the inmate had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on<\/p>\n that claim. First, the inmate\u2019s expert had testified that the nitrogen<\/p>\n hypoxia protocol only inflicted psychological pain, a pain which<\/p>\n would exist regardless of the method of execution. Second, the<\/p>\n district court had credited the testimony of a state expert that un-<\/p>\n consciousness would result within 10 to 40 seconds. Third, the dis-<\/p>\n trict court rejected the testimony of the inmate\u2019s expert that the<\/p>\n protocol would result in negative pressure pulmonary edema. See<\/p>\n id. at 898\u2013900.<\/p>\n We noted in Grayson, however, that there \u201cmay exist a form<\/p>\n of execution that induces psychological terror or pain that is severe<\/p>\n enough to support an Eighth Amendment claim.\u201d Id. at 900 n.3.<\/p>\n And we expressed \u201cno view on what the result would have been<\/p>\n had the district court\u2019s factual findings been di\ufb00erent.\u201d Id. at 901<\/p>\n n.4.<\/p>\n In this case, Je\ufb00ery Lee, an Alabama inmate under sentence<\/p>\n of death, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 in August of 2025,<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 3 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 3<\/p>\n alleging that the nitrogen hypoxia protocol violated the Eighth<\/p>\n Amendment. See generally D.E. 1. On February 2, 2026, Mr. Lee<\/p>\n filed an amended complaint, where he proposed execution by firing<\/p>\n squad, similar to Utah\u2019s protocol, as an alternative method of exe-<\/p>\n cution. See D.E. 40. See also D.E. 173-40.<\/p>\n One week later, on February 9, 2026, Alabama moved to set<\/p>\n his execution. On April 15, 2026, the Governor set Mr. Lee\u2019s exe-<\/p>\n cution for a 30-hour period beginning on June 11, 2026, at 12:00<\/p>\n a.m., and concluding on June 12, 2026, at 6:00 a.m. See D.E. 127-1.<\/p>\n From April 27\u201329, 2026, the district court held a three-day<\/p>\n bench trial on the constitutionality of Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia<\/p>\n protocol, the first such trial in the country . The parties introduced<\/p>\n voluminous evidence, including testimony from seven lay wit-<\/p>\n nesses and four expert witnesses, and hundreds of exhibits totaling<\/p>\n thousands of pages.<\/p>\n After weighing the evidence presented, the district court en-<\/p>\n tered an order rejecting Mr. Lee\u2019s Eighth Amendment claim. The<\/p>\n district court found that an inmate who is executed under the ni-<\/p>\n trogen hypoxia protocol \u201cconsciously\u201d experiences \u201csevere air hun-<\/p>\n ger and corresponding emotional distress, anxiety, physiological<\/p>\n stress, and physical discomfort\u201d for \u201cone to three minutes,\u201d but<\/p>\n concluded that the protocol does not violate the Eighth Amend-<\/p>\n ment by causing \u201csevere pain or su\ufb00ering \u2018well beyond what\u2019<\/p>\n s<\/p>\n needed to e\ufb00ectuate a death sentence.\u2019\u201d Lee v. Lovelace, No. 25-cv-<\/p>\n 680, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2026 WL 1493098, at *22, *25 (M.D. Ala.<\/p>\n May 28, 2026). Given its ruling, the district court did not address<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 4 of 21<\/p>\n 4 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n whether execution by firing squad pursuant to Utah\u2019s protocol con-<\/p>\n stitutes a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of<\/p>\n execution that significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain.<\/p>\n See id. at *22.<\/p>\n Mr. Lee appealed the district court\u2019s judgment, and sought<\/p>\n a stay of execution. We expedited briefing and heard oral argu-<\/p>\n ment by videoconference on Friday , June 5, 2026.<\/p>\n We hold that, given the district court\u2019s factual findings\u2014<\/p>\n which are not clearly erroneous\u2014Mr. Lee has shown that the pro-<\/p>\n tocol \u201cpresents a \u2018substantial risk of serious harm\u2019<\/p>\n \u2014severe pain<\/p>\n over and above death itself.\u201d Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159, 164 (2022)<\/p>\n (quoting Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 877 (2015)). See also Nance v.<\/p>\n Comm\u2019r, Ga. Dep\u2019t of Corr., 169 F. 4th 1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 2016) (ex-<\/p>\n plaining that the question is whether the method of execution \u201ccre-<\/p>\n ates a substantial risk of serious harm, an objectively intolerable<\/p>\n risk of harm that prevents prison o\ufb03cials from pleading that they<\/p>\n were subjectively blameless for purposes of the Eighth Amend-<\/p>\n ment\u201d). We therefore reverse the district court\u2019s judgment and re-<\/p>\n mand for consideration of the firing squad alternative proposed by<\/p>\n Mr. Lee.<\/p>\n I<\/p>\n A jury found Mr. Lee guilty of the 1998 murders of Jimmy<\/p>\n Ellis and Elaine Thompson, as well as the attempted murder of<\/p>\n Helen King, during a robbery. See Lee v. State, 898 So. 2d 790, 807<\/p>\n (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). After the penalty phase of the trial, the jury<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 5 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 5<\/p>\n recommended by a vote of 7 to 5 that he be sentenced to imprison-<\/p>\n ment for life without the possibility of parole for the murders. See<\/p>\n id. at 807\u2013808. Under then-governing Alabama law, the trial court<\/p>\n exercised its discretion to override the jury\u2019s recommendation and<\/p>\n sentence Mr. Lee to death. See id. at 808.<\/p>\n After exhausting his direct and collateral remedies, see, e.g.,<\/p>\n Lee v. Comm\u2019r, Alabama Dep\u2019t of Corr., 726 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2013),<\/p>\n Mr. Lee filed an action under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 challenging Ala-<\/p>\n bama\u2019s lethal injection protocol as violative of the Eighth Amend-<\/p>\n ment. See Lee v. Dunn, No. 16-473, 2017 WL 1483530 (S.D. Ala. Apr.<\/p>\n 24, 2017), vacated in part, 731 F. App\u2019x 885 (11th Cir. 2018). That<\/p>\n lawsuit became moot in 2018 when Mr. Lee elected to be executed<\/p>\n by nitrogen hypoxia, which had recently been authorized by the<\/p>\n Alabama Legislature for the first time. See Lee, No. 16-473, D.E. 38<\/p>\n (order granting joint motion to dismiss) (S.D. Ala. July 20, 2018).<\/p>\n On August 22, 2025, Mr. Lee filed the present \u00a7 1983 action<\/p>\n against the Commissioner of Alabama\u2019s Department of Correc-<\/p>\n tions challenging Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia protocol. Although<\/p>\n Alabama had not yet set his execution date, Mr. Lee explained that<\/p>\n he brought his suit \u201cto avoid being denied relief . . . on timeliness<\/p>\n grounds.\u201d D.E. 1 at \u00b6 3.<\/p>\n After the district court granted in part and denied in part the<\/p>\n Commissioner\u2019s motion to dismiss, Mr. Lee filed an amended com-<\/p>\n plaint in February of 2026. He alleged that \u201c[e]xecution by nitrogen<\/p>\n hypoxia\u201d induces \u201cconscious suffocation\u201d that \u201cis cruel and unusual<\/p>\n because it superadds terror and pain during the execution.\u201d D.E.<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 6 of 21<\/p>\n 6 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n 40 at \u00b6 63. He proposed that execution by firing squad similar to<\/p>\n Utah\u2019s protocol is a feasible and readily implemented alternative<\/p>\n method that would significantly reduce the substantial risk of se-<\/p>\n vere pain associated with nitrogen hypoxia. See id. at \u00b6\u00b6 69\u201372. See<\/p>\n also D.E. 173-40. About a week later, the state asked the Alabama<\/p>\n Supreme Court to set Mr. Lee\u2019s execution date. See D.E. 176 at 9.<\/p>\n The Alabama Supreme Court granted the motion, and on April 15,<\/p>\n 2026, the Governor declared that Mr. Lee\u2019s execution would take<\/p>\n place during a 30-hour window commencing on June 11, 2026, at<\/p>\n 12:00 a.m.1<\/span><\/p>\n Following discovery, the district court held a three-day<\/p>\n bench trial, at which it heard the testimony of eleven witnesses,<\/p>\n admitted hundreds of exhibits totaling thousands of pages, and<\/p>\n viewed video demonstrations of the nitrogen hypoxia systems of<\/p>\n Alabama and Louisiana. See Lee, 2026 WL 1493098, at *6. Mr. Lee<\/p>\n called three experts, two of whom were Dr. Richard Schwartzstein<\/p>\n and Dr. Julie Bastarache. Dr. Schwartzstein was admitted as an ex-<\/p>\n pert in pulmonology, critical care medicine, physiology, hypoxia,<\/p>\n dyspnea, and air hunger. Dr. Bastarache was admitted as an expert<\/p>\n in pulmonology, critical care medicine, and pathology. For its part,<\/p>\n 1<\/span> As the district court explained, a number of other Alabama inmates also filed<\/p>\n a similar action challenging the nitrogen hypoxia protocol. Their cases were<\/p>\n initially consolidated with Mr. Lee\u2019s, but when the state indicated that it was<\/p>\n going to move to set an execution date for Mr. Lee, his case was deconsoli-<\/p>\n dated. See Lee, 2026 WL 1493098, at *4.<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 7 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 7<\/p>\n the Commissioner called Dr. Joseph F. Antognini, an expert in an-<\/p>\n esthesiology. See id. at *5. We summarize the evidence and the<\/p>\n district court\u2019s findings of fact below.2<\/span><\/p>\n A<\/p>\n \u201cNitrogen hypoxia, as set out in Alabama\u2019s protocol, causes<\/p>\n death by introducing \u2018pure nitrogen gas . . . to the condemned in-<\/p>\n mate through an industrial-use respirator mask until the inmate is<\/p>\n declared dead.\u2019\u201d Grayson, 121 F.4th at 896. The parties generally<\/p>\n agree on how Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia protocol is carried out.<\/p>\n As the district court explained, the execution team escorts<\/p>\n the inmate to the execution chamber. See Lee, 2026 WL 1493098,<\/p>\n at *3. They then secure the inmate to the gurney with a chest and<\/p>\n shoulder harness made of nylon straps, attach pulse oximeters, and<\/p>\n secure a mask to the inmate\u2019s face. See id. After the death warrant<\/p>\n is read and the inmate makes his final statement, the warden acti-<\/p>\n vates the nitrogen hypoxia system, which causes ultra-high purity<\/p>\n nitrogen gas to flow into the mask. See id. The nitrogen gas dis-<\/p>\n places breathable air until the inmate is breathing almost pure ni-<\/p>\n trogen. See id. The mask allows exhaled carbon dioxide to exit via<\/p>\n a one-way valve, which prevents the inmate from rebreathing car-<\/p>\n bon dioxide. See id. When the brain is deprived of oxygen for long<\/p>\n enough, unconsciousness and death ensue. See id.<\/p>\n 2<\/span> We thank the district court for its comprehensive order. Given time con-<\/p>\n straints, we do not summarize all of the evidence presented at the bench trial.USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 8 of 21<\/span><\/p>\n 8 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n Mr. Lee is scheduled to be the eighth inmate in Alabama ex-<\/p>\n ecuted by nitrogen hypoxia. In March of 2025, Louisiana executed<\/p>\n Jessie Hoffman, Jr. via a nitrogen hypoxia protocol similar to Ala-<\/p>\n bama\u2019s. See id. at *4.<\/p>\n B<\/p>\n The district court credited the following opinions of Dr.<\/p>\n Schwartzstein and\/or Dr. Bastarache regarding severe air hunger<\/p>\n caused by the nitrogen hypoxia protocol.<\/p>\n \u2022 Inmates executed under the nitrogen hypoxia protocol<\/p>\n \u201clikely experience severe air hunger, which evokes distress<\/p>\n and anxiety.\u201d Id. at *14. Specifically, the district court cred-<\/p>\n ited Dr. Bastarache\u2019s opinion that \u201cair hunger triggers the<\/p>\n body\u2019s \u2018extreme physiologic need to get more oxygen\u2019 and<\/p>\n produces \u2018intense physiologic stress that causes intense suf-<\/p>\n fering.\u2019\u201d Id. (record citations omitted). \u201cBecause the inmate<\/p>\n cannot respond to his \u2018basic survival instincts\u2019 to address the<\/p>\n air hunger, a \u2018vicious cycle of increasing air hunger and panic<\/p>\n symptoms\u2019 can occur.\u201d Id. (record citations omitted).<\/p>\n \u2022 \u201cUnlike pain, which is normally localized to a specific body<\/p>\n part, air hunger is \u2018a holistic discomfort sensation,\u2019 and indi-<\/p>\n viduals struggle to distract themselves from their dyspnea.\u201d<\/p>\n Id. at *15 (record citation omitted). \u201cBecause it evokes a fear<\/p>\n of dying, air hunger can be worse than pain.\u201d Id.<\/p>\n \u2022 \u201c[A]t a partial pressure of oxygen (PO2<\/span>) below 60 mm<\/p>\n Hg . . . , a person\u2019s drive to breathe \u2018takes off,\u2019 making him<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 9 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 9<\/p>\n or her \u2018desperate to try to do something to correct the hy-<\/p>\n poxemia.\u2019\u201d Id. (record citations omitted). Given that the<\/p>\n goal of the nitrogen hypoxia protocol \u201cis to take the inmate\u2019s<\/p>\n PO2<\/span> all the way down to 0 mm Hg,\u201d the protocol \u201cevokes<\/p>\n an \u2018incredibly strong stimulus\u2019 to breathe.\u201d Id. And, \u201cwhile<\/p>\n only a minor factor, the inmate\u2019s awareness that he cannot<\/p>\n alleviate his dyspnea . . . would exacerbate his anxiety and<\/p>\n the air hunger itself.\u201d Id.<\/p>\n \u2022 \u201c[F]our inmates executed under the [p]rotocol had flash pul-<\/p>\n monary edema, which would have exacerbated their dysp-<\/p>\n nea.\u201d Id. \u201c[F]lash pulmonary edema is a condition triggered<\/p>\n by extreme distress in which the lungs \u2018almost instantane-<\/p>\n ously\u2019 fill with fluid, making it \u2018extremely difficult to<\/p>\n breathe.\u2019\u201d Id. \u201cOf the inmates executed under the [p]rotocol<\/p>\n who have had autopsies performed . . . , all four had evi-<\/p>\n dence of flash pulmonary edema caused by a sudden rise in<\/p>\n blood pressure,\u201d which is \u201can abnormal autopsy finding.\u201d<\/p>\n Id. \u201cFlash pulmonary edema indicates severe physiological<\/p>\n stress; exacerbated the inmates\u2019 dyspnea; and would have<\/p>\n occurred \u2018very early on in the executions\u2019 while the inmates<\/p>\n were conscious and \u2018when air hunger was occurring and<\/p>\n reaching its peak[.]\u2019\u201d Id.<\/p>\n \u2022 \u201c[H]ypoxia causes dyspnea even when carbon dioxide levels<\/p>\n are normal and, therefore, the lack of carbon dioxide<\/p>\n buildup in the mask does not eliminate or reduce the possi-<\/p>\n bility of severe air hunger.\u201d Id. at *16.<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 10 of 21<\/p>\n 10 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n \u2022<\/p>\n \u201cSeveral factors can alleviate air hunger, including taking<\/p>\n larger breaths and reducing anxiety. In the clinical and re-<\/p>\n search settings, mitigating the dyspneic subject\u2019s anxiety is<\/p>\n possible. In the research setting, for example, researchers<\/p>\n can reassure the subjects that the air hunger is merely part<\/p>\n of the experiment, and this reassurance helps the subjects<\/p>\n tolerate the discomfort of air hunger. And in the clinical set-<\/p>\n ting, doctors can reassure many patients that the patients\u2019<\/p>\n dyspnea is a consequence of their condition and that it does<\/p>\n not mean they are going to die. In an execution setting, such<\/p>\n reassurance is not possible because the goal is to cause the<\/p>\n inmate\u2019s death.\u201d Id. at *25.<\/p>\n Mr. Lee and the Commissioner \u201cvigorously contest[ed]\u201d<\/p>\n how long it takes an inmate being executed by nitrogen hypoxia to<\/p>\n become unconscious and how long he is capable of experiencing<\/p>\n suffering. See id. at *16. Dr. Antognini opined that inmates are<\/p>\n rendered unconscious within 60 to 75 seconds after the nitrogen<\/p>\n gas is turned on, while Dr. Bastarache posited that four inmates<\/p>\n previously executed by nitrogen hypoxia remained conscious for<\/p>\n three to seven minutes. See id.<\/p>\n Ultimately, after considering the conflicting evidence, the<\/p>\n district court found that an inmate who is executed under the pro-<\/p>\n tocol \u201cexperiences severe air hunger and corresponding emotional<\/p>\n distress, anxiety, physiological stress, and physical discomfort\u201d for<\/p>\n \u201cnot significantly more than one to three minutes.\u201d Id. at *25. It<\/p>\n explained that \u201cair hunger causes extreme emotional distress,<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 11 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 11<\/p>\n panic, anxiety, and fear because breathing is essential to human life.<\/p>\n Patients often describe air hunger as akin to suffocation or drown-<\/p>\n ing.\u201d Id. at *24 (internal quotation marks omitted).3<\/span><\/p>\n C<\/p>\n After making these factual findings, the district court con-<\/p>\n cluded that Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia protocol does not cause<\/p>\n needless suffering and therefore does not violate the Eighth<\/p>\n Amendment. See id. Although the protocol \u201clikely causes severe<\/p>\n air hunger\u2014the most severe form of breathing discomfort\u2014for<\/p>\n one to three minutes,\u201d that \u201cpain, anxiety, and dread\u201d is primarily<\/p>\n a result of inmates \u201cknow[ing] they are going to die\u201d and \u201ctheir<\/p>\n body\u2019s survival instincts\u201d kicking in. See id. at *22\u201323. Thus, the<\/p>\n district court reasoned, the nitrogen hypoxia protocol does not<\/p>\n cause suffering \u201cwell beyond what\u2019s needed to effectuate a death<\/p>\n sentence.\u201d Id. at *22 (quoting Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. 119, 136\u2013<\/p>\n 37 (2019)). See also id. at *23 (\u201c[T]he physiological discomfort<\/p>\n caused by the Protocol does not violate the Constitution.\u201d).<\/p>\n 3<\/span> Dr. Schwartzstein opined that a person being executed by nitrogen hypoxia<\/p>\n continues to suffer pain for three to five minutes after becoming unconscious.<\/p>\n The district court did not address whether that opinion was persuasive or not.<\/p>\n See id. at *17. Instead, it declined to consider the opinion because, in its view,<\/p>\n an unconscious person \u201cdoes not experience or perceive dyspnea of a consti-<\/p>\n tutionally relevant kind.\u201d Id. At oral argument, counsel for Mr. Lee asserted<\/p>\n (without waiving any argument in his brief) that this Court could grant him<\/p>\n relief without addressing that ruling. We agree, and express no view on the<\/p>\n alleged unconscious suffering.<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 12 of 21<\/p>\n 12 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n Because it concluded that the nitrogen hypoxia protocol did<\/p>\n not cause needless suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment,<\/p>\n the district court did not reach Mr. Lee\u2019s proposed alternative of<\/p>\n execution by firing squad. See id. at *25. See also Nance, 169 F.4th<\/p>\n at 1318 (\u201cIf the planned method does not present a substantial risk<\/p>\n of serious harm, the officials may use it regardless of the proposed<\/p>\n alternatives.\u201d).<\/p>\n II<\/p>\n In an appeal from a bench trial, we review factual findings<\/p>\n for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. See Dish Network, LLC<\/p>\n v. Fraifer, 171 F.4th 1344, 1351 (11th Cir. 2026).<\/p>\n Under clear error review, a factual \u201cfinding that is \u2018plausible\u2019<\/p>\n in light of the full record\u2014even if another is equally or more so\u2014<\/p>\n must govern.\u201d Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 293 (2017). \u201cThis<\/p>\n standard does not entitle us to overturn a finding simply because<\/p>\n we are convinced that we would have decided the case differently.\u201d<\/p>\n Glossip, 576 U.S. at 881 (internal quotation marks and brackets<\/p>\n omitted).<\/p>\n Once the relevant underlying facts are determined, whether<\/p>\n a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment presents a<\/p>\n question of law. See Grayson v. Warden, Comm\u2019r, Ala. Dep\u2019t of Corr.,<\/p>\n 869 F.3d 1204, 1239 (11th Cir. 2017). Accord Bucklew v. Precythe, 883<\/p>\n F.3d 1087, 1094 (8th Cir. 2018) (\u201c[W]hether a method of execution<\/p>\n \u2018constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a question of law.\u2019\u201d)<\/p>\n (citation omitted), aff\u2019d, 587 U.S. 119 (2019).<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 13 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 13<\/p>\n III<\/p>\n Under governing Supreme Court precedent,<\/p>\n [t]he Eighth Amendment \u201cdoes not demand the<\/p>\n avoidance of all risk of pain in carrying out execu-<\/p>\n tions.\u201d To the contrary, the Constitution a\ufb00ords a<\/p>\n \u201cmeasure of deference to a State\u2019s choice of execu-<\/p>\n tion procedures\u201d and does not authorize courts to<\/p>\n serve as \u201cboards of inquiry charged with determining<\/p>\n \u2018best practices\u2019 for executions.\u201d The Eighth Amend-<\/p>\n ment does not come into play unless the risk of pain<\/p>\n associated with the State\u2019s method is \u201csubstantial<\/p>\n when compared to a known and available alterna-<\/p>\n tive.\u201d<\/p>\n Bucklew, 587 U.S. at 134 (citations omitted).<\/p>\n To succeed on a method-of execution claim, an inmate must<\/p>\n satisfy two requirements. First, he \u201cmust establish that<\/p>\n the . . . method of execution presents a \u2018substantial risk of serious<\/p>\n harm\u2019<\/p>\n \u2014severe pain over and above death itself.\u201d Nance, 597 U.S. at<\/p>\n 164 (quoting Glossip, 576 U.S. at 877). Second, he \u201c\u2018must identify<\/p>\n an alternative method that is feasible, readily implemented, and in<\/p>\n fact significantly reduces\u2019 the risk of harm involved.\u201d Id. (quoting<\/p>\n Glossip, 576 U.S. at 877) (brackets omitted). See Bucklew, 587 U.S. at<\/p>\n 136 (\u201cDistinguishing between constitutionally permissible and im-<\/p>\n permissible degrees of pain . . . is a necessarily comparative exercise.<\/p>\n To decide whether the State has cruelly \u2018superadded\u2019 pain to the<\/p>\n punishment of death isn\u2019t something that can be accomplished by<\/p>\n examining the State\u2019s proposed method in a vacuum, but only by<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 14 of 21<\/p>\n 14 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n \u2018compar[ing]\u2019 that method with a viable alternative.\u201d). \u201cWhere a<\/p>\n prisoner claims a safer alternative to the State\u2019<\/p>\n s . . . protocol, he<\/p>\n cannot make a successful challenge by showing a \u2018slightly or mar-<\/p>\n ginally safer alternative.\u2019\u201d Price v. Comm\u2019r, Ala. Dep\u2019t of Corr., 920<\/p>\n F.3d 1317, 1326 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Glossip, 576 U.S. at 877).<\/p>\n Nevertheless, he may identify \u201can alternative method that is not<\/p>\n [currently] authorized\u201d by state law. See Nance, 597 U.S. at 163\u201364,<\/p>\n 173. See also Bucklew, 587 U.S. at 139\u201340.<\/p>\n The district court found that the nitrogen hypoxia protocol<\/p>\n causes one to three minutes of \u201csevere air hunger and correspond-<\/p>\n ing emotional distress, anxiety, physiological stress, and physical<\/p>\n discomfort.\u201d Lee, 2026 WL 1493098, at *25.<\/p>\n Air hunger involves activation of brain regions dedi-<\/p>\n cated to basic survival instincts, which include the<\/p>\n need to breathe adequately. When breathing is insuf-<\/p>\n ficient, severe distress, anxiety, and panic are normal<\/p>\n and expected human sensations that, under typical<\/p>\n circumstances, highly motivate an individual to im-<\/p>\n prove [his] breathing immediately or face imminent<\/p>\n death.<\/p>\n Id. at *24. \u201cMany people find air hunger worse than pain because<\/p>\n it is associated with the fear of dying.\u201d Id.<\/p>\n A<\/p>\n The parties challenge some of the district court\u2019s factual<\/p>\n findings. Mr. Lee, for example, asserts that the district court should<\/p>\n have found, based on the expert testimony he presented, that in-<\/p>\n mates subjected to execution by nitrogen hypoxia could remain<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 15 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 15<\/p>\n conscious for three to seven minutes. The Commissioner, for his<\/p>\n part, attacks the district court\u2019s finding that the protocol causes an<\/p>\n inmate to experience air hunger and associated distress for not sig-<\/p>\n nificantly more than one to three minutes. See Brief for Appellant<\/p>\n at 26; Brief for Appellee at 35.<\/p>\n We discern no clear error in any of the district court\u2019s factual<\/p>\n findings. As noted, a finding that is plausible, even if another is<\/p>\n equally or more so, must govern. See Cooper, 581 U.S. at 293. And<\/p>\n we cannot \u201coverturn a finding simply because we are convinced<\/p>\n that we would have decided the case di\ufb00erently.\u201d Glossip, 576 U.S.<\/p>\n at 881 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).<\/p>\n A district court in a bench trial is not required to accept an<\/p>\n expert\u2019s opinion even if unimpeached. See, e.g., Eason v. Weaver, 484<\/p>\n F.2d 459, 460 (5th Cir. 1973). And, like a jury, when a district court<\/p>\n performs the role of factfinder it \u201cis not required to accept \u2018all or<\/p>\n none\u2019 of a witness\u2019[ ] testimony; rather, [it] may accept those por-<\/p>\n tions of a witness\u2019[ ] testimony which it considers credible and re-<\/p>\n ject other portions which it finds to be improbable.\u201d Rixey v. W.<\/p>\n Paces Ferry Hosp., Inc., 916 F.2d 608, 616 (11th Cir. 1990). The district<\/p>\n court here did not err, much less clearly err, in accepting some of<\/p>\n the expert testimony and in rejecting other aspects of that same<\/p>\n testimony. See United States v. Stein, 964 F.3d 1313, 1322 (11th Cir.<\/p>\n 2020) (\u201cOur case law is . . . unambiguous: the district court fre-<\/p>\n quently must choose between dueling experts, and if that decision<\/p>\n is reasonably based on evidence found in the record, the choice is<\/p>\n not clear error.\u201d).<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 16 of 21<\/p>\n 16 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n B<\/p>\n Based upon the district court\u2019s factual findings, we hold that<\/p>\n Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia protocol \u201cpresents a \u2018substantial risk<\/p>\n of serious harm\u2019<\/p>\n \u2014severe pain over and above death itself.\u201d Nance,<\/p>\n 597 U.S. at 164. Mr. Lee has therefore satisfied the first prong of<\/p>\n the Glossip Eighth Amendment standard.4<\/span><\/p>\n As intended, the protocol causes death by introducing pure<\/p>\n nitrogen gas through a respirator mask until the inmate is declared<\/p>\n dead. The district court found that an inmate executed under the<\/p>\n protocol su\ufb00ers one to three minutes of \u201csevere air hunger and cor-<\/p>\n responding emotional distress, anxiety, physiological stress, and<\/p>\n physical discomfort.\u201d Lee, 2026 WL 1493098, at *25. This mental<\/p>\n distress, physiological su\ufb00ering, and physical discomfort, the dis-<\/p>\n trict court found, will likely take place. There is, in other words, a<\/p>\n substantial risk of serious harm. The risk is not conjectural, spec-<\/p>\n ulative, or doubtful.<\/p>\n The Eighth Amendment does not \u201cguarantee a prisoner a<\/p>\n painless death.\u201d Bucklew, 587 U.S. at 132. Yet at the Founding,<\/p>\n \u201ccruel\u201d was \u201coften defined to mean . . . \u2018[d]isposed to give pain to<\/p>\n others, in body or mind[.]\u2019\u201d Id. at 130 (quoting 1 Noah Webster, An<\/p>\n 4<\/span> Mr. Lee challenges the district court\u2019s order allowing the testimony of Dr.<\/p>\n Antognini, the Commissioner\u2019s expert, on the ground that he did not suffi-<\/p>\n ciently explain the extrapolation underlying some of his opinions. See Gen.<\/p>\n Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). Given our resolution on the first<\/p>\n prong of Glossip, we need not address this issue.<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 17 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 17<\/p>\n American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (first set of<\/p>\n brackets in original)).<\/p>\n In our view, the overall su\ufb00ering described by the district<\/p>\n court, which lasts for one to three minutes, presents a substantial<\/p>\n risk of serious harm over and above death itself. Counting to 60 or<\/p>\n 180 seconds is not a quick exercise, and constitutionally speaking,<\/p>\n that timeframe is intolerable given the su\ufb00ering that would likely<\/p>\n take place under Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia protocol. Such suf-<\/p>\n fering, we believe, is over and above the mental distress that typi-<\/p>\n cally accompanies the knowledge of impending death by execu-<\/p>\n tion.<\/p>\n The Fifth Circuit\u2019s 2-1 decision in Ho\ufb00man v. Westcott, 131<\/p>\n F.4th 332 (5th Cir. 2025), does not call for a di\ufb00erent result.<\/p>\n In Ho\ufb00man, Louisiana appealed a preliminary injunction that<\/p>\n prevented state o\ufb03cials from executing an inmate through nitro-<\/p>\n gen hypoxia. The Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n It held that the inmate failed to meet the two requirements de-<\/p>\n manded under Supreme Court precedent\u2014namely, that the<\/p>\n method of execution \u201cpresents a risk that is \u2018sure or very likely to<\/p>\n cause serious illness and needless su\ufb00ering,\u2019\u201d id. at 335 (quoting<\/p>\n Glossip, 576 U.S. at 877), and that the State could use \u201ca feasible and<\/p>\n readily implemented alternative method of execution that would<\/p>\n significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain\u201d which it \u201chas<\/p>\n refused to adopt without a legitimate penological reason,<\/p>\n \u201d id.<\/p>\n (quoting Bucklew, 587 U.S. at 134).<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 18 of 21<\/p>\n 18 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n As to the first requirement, the Fifth Circuit explained that<\/p>\n \u201cthe district court heard expert testimony from both parties that<\/p>\n nitrogen hypoxia is painless.\u201d Id. at 336. With respect to the second<\/p>\n requirement, the Fifth Circuit concluded that \u201cexperts for both par-<\/p>\n ties agreed that death by firing squad\u201d\u2014Mr. Ho\ufb00man\u2019s proposed<\/p>\n alternative means of execution\u2014would \u201cbe more painful than exe-<\/p>\n cution by nitrogen hypoxia.\u201d Id.5<\/span><\/p>\n Here, in contrast, the district court found that nitrogen hy-<\/p>\n poxia causes an inmate to su\ufb00er \u201cprofound physiological discom-<\/p>\n fort and distress\u201d<\/p>\n \u2014in addition to mental distress\u2014through severe<\/p>\n air hunger, see Lee, 2026 WL 1493098 at *22, and physiological dis-<\/p>\n tress is at least partly physical. See Webster\u2019s Third New World Dic-<\/p>\n tionary (Unabridged) 1707 (2012) (defining \u201cphysiological\u201d in part<\/p>\n as \u201ccharacteristic of or appropriate for an organism\u2019s healthy or<\/p>\n normal functioning\u201d); The American Heritage Dictionary of the<\/p>\n English Language 1325 (4th ed. 2009) (defining \u201cphysiological\u201d in<\/p>\n part as \u201c[b]eing in accord with or characteristic of the normal func-<\/p>\n tioning of a living organism\u201d); 2 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary<\/p>\n 2194 (5th ed. 2002) (defining \u201cphysiological\u201d in part as \u201c[p]ertaining<\/p>\n 5<\/span> The dissent in Hoffman believed that the majority had failed to address the<\/p>\n district court\u2019s findings that inmates executed by nitrogen hypoxia faced con-<\/p>\n scious terror and a sense of suffocation for 35 to 40 seconds on the low end<\/p>\n and conscious psychological suffering for three to five minutes if they held<\/p>\n their breath. See id. at 337 (Haynes, J., dissenting).<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 19 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 19<\/p>\n to the material universe or to natural science; physical\u201d). The dis-<\/p>\n trict court here also did not make any findings about the firing<\/p>\n squad as an alternative method of execution.<\/p>\n C<\/p>\n Under the second prong of Glossip, Mr. Lee must also iden-<\/p>\n tify an alternative method that \u201cis feasible, readily implemented,<\/p>\n and in fact significantly reduces the risk of harm involved.\u201d Nance,<\/p>\n 597 U.S. at 164 (quotations and brackets omitted). He asserts that<\/p>\n execution by firing squad pursuant to the Utah protocol is a feasi-<\/p>\n ble, readily implementable, and less painful alternative within the<\/p>\n meaning of the Eighth Amendment. As noted, an \u201cinmate seeking<\/p>\n to identify an alternative method of execution is not limited to<\/p>\n choosing among those presently authorized by a particular State\u2019s<\/p>\n law.\u201d Bucklew, 587 U.S. at 139\u201340. Cf. Nance v. Comm\u2019r, Ga. Dep\u2019t of<\/p>\n Corr., 59 F. 4th 1149, 1155\u201356 (11th Cir. 2023) (holding that a Geor-<\/p>\n gia inmate set for execution by lethal injection su\ufb03ciently pled that<\/p>\n the firing squad was an alternative method of execution, but not<\/p>\n addressing whether the state had a \u201clegitimate penological reason\u201d<\/p>\n for refusing to use the firing squad and allowing district court to<\/p>\n address that issue on remand).<\/p>\n The district court, as noted, did not address whether Mr. Lee<\/p>\n had shown that the firing squad was a feasible and readily imple-<\/p>\n mented alternative method that would significantly reduce the risk<\/p>\n of harm. Mr. Lee asks us to resolve that issue now , but we are not<\/p>\n equipped to do so. As an appellate tribunal, it is not our \u201crole to<\/p>\n find facts,\u201d United States v. Barnette, 10 F.3d 1553, 1558 (11th Cir.<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 20 of 21<\/p>\n 20 Opinion of the Court 26-11864<\/p>\n 1994), and we cannot therefore make findings with respect to feasi-<\/p>\n bility given the conflicting testimony on matters that might a\ufb00ect<\/p>\n that issue (e.g., the risk of failure with the firing squad, and whether<\/p>\n the need for volunteer marksmen from the correctional sta\ufb00<\/p>\n amounts to a valid penological reason to reject that method). Com-<\/p>\n pare Br. for Appellant at 50\u201352, with Br. for Appellee at 39\u201346. Nor<\/p>\n are we able to make factual determinations about what pain, if any,<\/p>\n an inmate will su\ufb00er if executed by firing squad. Mr. Lee seems to<\/p>\n grudgingly recognize some of these problems, as he alternatively<\/p>\n requests a remand to the district court to address the firing squad.<\/p>\n See Reply Br. of Appellant at 12 (\u201cTo the extent this Court doubts<\/p>\n whether Mr. Lee met his burden of identifying an alternative<\/p>\n method of execution, the appropriate remedy is to remand for fur-<\/p>\n ther proceedings, not to dismiss [the] Eighth Amendment claim.\u201d).<\/p>\n We therefore remand the case to the district court with in-<\/p>\n structions to immediately address the second prong of Glossip. And<\/p>\n because we cannot make a determination about likelihood of suc-<\/p>\n cess on that prong on this record, we deny without prejudice Mr.<\/p>\n Lee\u2019s current motion for a stay of his execution.<\/p>\n IV<\/p>\n Under the facts found by the district court, Alabama\u2019s nitro-<\/p>\n gen hypoxia protocol \u201cpresents a \u2018substantial risk of serious<\/p>\n harm\u2019<\/p>\n \u2014severe pain over and above death itself.\u201d Nance, 597 U.S. at<\/p>\n 164 (quoting Glossip, 576 U.S. at 877). As a result, Mr. Lee has satis-<\/p>\n fied the first prong of Glossip, and we reverse the district court\u2019s<\/p>\n judgment in favor of the Commissioner.<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 21 of 21<\/p>\n 26-11864 Opinion of the Court 21<\/p>\n Given the parties\u2019 disputes on prong two of Glossip, some of<\/p>\n which are factual, the district court will now need to determine in<\/p>\n the first instance whether Mr. Lee has demonstrated that the firing<\/p>\n squad is an alternative method of execution that \u201cis feasible, readily<\/p>\n implemented, and in fact significantly reduce[s]\u201d the risk of harm<\/p>\n posed by nitrogen hypoxia. See id. If Mr. Lee files a motion for stay<\/p>\n of execution, the district court will have to rule on that as well.<\/p>\n Given the impending execution window for Mr. Lee, we or-<\/p>\n der the clerk to issue the mandate immediately (i.e., along with the<\/p>\n filing of this opinion). That way the district court will reacquire<\/p>\n jurisdiction right away. See United States v. Sears, 411 F.3d 1240, 1241<\/p>\n (11th Cir. 2005) (\u201cIssuance of the mandate g[ives] the district court<\/p>\n jurisdiction over the case again.\u201d).6<\/span><\/p>\n REVERSED AND REMANDED.<\/p>\n 6<\/span> If we issued a published opinion in this case, we could not expedite the issu-<\/p>\n ance of the mandate without providing \u201creasonable notice\u201d to the other mem-<\/p>\n bers of this Court. See 11th Cir. R. 41-2.<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-2 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 1 of 2<\/p>\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS<\/b><\/p>\n FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT<\/b><\/p>\n ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING<\/p>\n 56 Forsyth Street, N.W.<\/p>\n Atlanta, Georgia 30303<\/p>\n David J. Smith<\/p>\n Clerk of Court<\/p>\n For rules and forms visit<\/p>\n www.ca11.uscourts.gov<\/p>\n June 08, 2026<\/p>\n MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES<\/p>\n Appeal Number: 26-11864-P<\/p>\n Case Style: Jeffery Lee v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al<\/p>\n District Court Docket No: 2:25-cv-00680-ECM<\/p>\n Opinion Issued<\/p>\n Enclosed is a copy of the Court\u2019s decision issued today in this case. Judgment has been entered<\/p>\n today pursuant to FRAP 36. The Court\u2019s mandate will immediately.<\/p>\n Petitions for Rehearing<\/p>\n The time for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir.<\/p>\n R. 40-2. Please see FRAP 40 and the accompanying circuit rules for information concerning<\/p>\n petitions for rehearing.<\/p>\n Costs<\/p>\n No costs are taxed.<\/p>\n Bill of Costs<\/p>\n If costs are taxed, please use the most recent version of the Bill of Costs form available on the<\/p>\n Court\u2019s website at www.ca11.uscourts.gov<\/span>. For more information regarding costs, see FRAP 39<\/p>\n and 11th Cir. R. 39-1.<\/p>\n Attorney\u2019s Fees<\/p>\n The time to file and required documentation for an application for attorney\u2019s fees and any<\/p>\n objection to the application are governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2 and 39-3.<\/p>\n Appointed Counsel<\/p>\n Counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) must submit a voucher claiming<\/p>\n compensation via the eVoucher system no later than 45 days after issuance of the mandate or<\/p>\n the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari. Please contact the CJA Team at (404) 335-6167 or<\/p>\n cja_evoucher@ca11.uscourts.gov for questions regarding CJA vouchers or the eVoucher<\/p>\n system.<\/p>\n Clerk\u2019s Office Phone Numbers<\/p>\n General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122<\/span>USCA11 Case: 26-11864 Document: 41-2 Date Filed: 06\/08\/2026 Page: 2 of 2<\/p>\n Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200<\/p>\n CM\/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141<\/p>\n OPIN-1 Ntc of Issuance of Opinion<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 8, 2026 info@executionintervention.org FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES NITROGEN EXECUTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CRUEL Eleventh Circuit Reverses Lower Court in Jeffrey Lee Case, Cites \u201cIntolerable\u201d Suffering\u2026 Execution Intervention Project Calls Decision Landmark Victory for Abolition \u00a0 The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit today reversed a lower court ruling and held […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2509,"featured_media":16343,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[9116,7301,9107,7013,9110,9113],"class_list":["post-16340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-freshwritings","category-thoughts","tag-cruel-and-unusual-punishment","tag-nitrogen-execution","tag-nitrogen-gas-execution","tag-nitrogen-hypoxia","tag-nitrogen-killing","tag-nitrogen-torture"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n