Brewer v. Landrigan

Supreme Court

Brewer v. Landrigan

178 L. Ed. 2d 346, 131 S. Ct. 445, 562 U.S. 996, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8327

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 26, 2010

DocketNo. 10A416

StatusPublished

Cited by36 cases

This text of 178 L. Ed. 2d 346 (Brewer v. Landrigan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brewer v. Landrigan, 178 L. Ed. 2d 346, 131 S. Ct. 445, 562 U.S. 996, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8327 (U.S. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Application to vacate the order by the district court granting a temporary restraining order, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe. The district court granted the restraining order because it was left to speculate as to the risk of harm. See Order Granting Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in Landrigan v. Brewer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113485, No. CV-10-02246PHX-ROS (D Ariz.), Doc. 21, p. 15 (“[T]he Court is left to speculate . . . whether the non-FDA approved drug will cause pain and suffering.”). But speculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is “ ‘sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering.’ ” Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 170 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2008) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 113 S. Ct. 2475, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993)). There was no showing that the drug was unlawfully obtained, nor was there an offer of proof to that effect. Motion to file documents under seal denied as moot.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application to vacate the order granting a temporary restraining order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Application to vacate the order by the district court granting a temporary restraining order, presented to Justice Kennedy, and by him referred to the Court, granted. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe. The district court granted the restraining order because it was left to speculate as to the risk of harm. See Order Granting Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in Landrigan v. Brewer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113485, No. CV-10-02246PHX-ROS (D Ariz.), Doc. 21, p. 15 (“[T]he Court is left to speculate . . . whether the non-FDA approved drug will cause pain and suffering.”). But speculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is “ ‘sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering.’ ” Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 170 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2008) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 113 S. Ct. 2475, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993)). There was no showing that the drug was unlawfully obtained, nor was there an offer of proof to that effect. Motion to file documents under seal denied as moot.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application to vacate the order granting a temporary restraining order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 L. Ed. 2d 346, 131 S. Ct. 445, 562 U.S. 996, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-v-landrigan-scotus-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack