How have other U.S. states approached replacing lethal injection with methods like nitrogen hypoxia or firing squads since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020, several U.S. states have revisited execution methods because of chronic difficulty obtaining lethal‑injection drugs, leading legislatures to authorize alternatives such as nitrogen hypoxia, firing squads, and restored older methods; a handful of states have created statutory back‑ups while a few have pursued protocols or even used new methods in practice [1] [2] [3]. The trend is not uniform: some states paused or abandoned alternative projects when injectable drugs returned to the market, while others kept alternative methods on the books as contingency measures or in response to political pressure [4] [5].
1. Why states started looking beyond lethal injection
Beginning long before 2020, pharmaceutical manufacturers and regulators increasingly refused to supply drugs for executions, producing shortages and secrecy-driven procurement efforts that pushed states to consider non‑injectable methods as practical contingencies and political statements about maintaining capital punishment [6] [1]. Courts repeatedly upheld that lethal injection per se was not unconstitutional, but logistical failures—failed vein access and drug scarcity—made alternatives appealing to some policymakers who framed the moves as ensuring enforceability of death sentences [5] [4].
2. Nitrogen hypoxia: legislative gambit and real world use
Nitrogen hypoxia was adopted on statute books in several states as an alternative to lethal injection; Alabama’s move culminated in the first planned nitrogen execution and broader discussion of the method’s mechanics and ethics [4] [2]. Reporting shows Alabama prepared protocols and intended to use nitrogen gas after years of lethal‑injection problems, and federal and state agencies have debated how to design and test such systems, though detailed medical validation and legal challenges persist in public discourse and reporting [2] [4].
3. Firing squads and revived archaic methods as pragmatic backups
A number of states have re‑authorized firing squads, or preserved old methods like electrocution, explicitly as backups when lethal‑injection drugs are unavailable; South Carolina and Idaho are among states that moved in that direction in the post‑2020 era, and five states currently authorize firing squads even if they are not the primary method [3] [7]. Journalists and legal scholars have framed this as a political and practical response: firing squads remove dependence on pharmaceuticals but invite renewed debate over the spectacle and perceived brutality of execution [1] [7].
4. How courts, advocates, and agencies have responded
Legal challenges have followed legislative changes: opponents argue alternatives like firing squads or nitrogen hypoxia may constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and courts have scrutinized both statutory authorization and proposed protocols while some states simultaneously enacted secrecy measures to shield suppliers and procedures [5] [6]. Proponents counter that courts have repeatedly ruled lethal injection constitutional and that states must have workable methods to carry out lawful sentences, a position reflected in legislative urgency reported in several states [5] [1].
5. Variations across states: pragmatic patchwork, not a national shift
Rather than a coordinated national conversion away from lethal injection, the landscape is patchwork: some states like Oklahoma temporarily shelved alternative programs after regaining access to injectable drugs, while others kept statutory options in place as contingencies; concurrently, several states abolished the death penalty altogether, removing this debate from their legislatures [4] [8] [2]. Coverage emphasizes that five states authorize firing squads and that lethal gas is still authorized as default in a subset of states—underscoring heterogeneity, not unanimity [3] [7].
6. Hidden agendas and political optics driving choices
Legislative moves often carried implicit agendas: asserting toughness on crime, avoiding political blowback from botched lethal injections, and preserving the power of capital sentences—actions shaped by prison administrators’ operational worries, pharmaceutical resistance, and partisan politics, as reflected in state legislative decisions and public statements reported by outlets like AP and NPR [2] [1]. Conversely, abolitionist trends and legal scrutiny push back, meaning method changes are as much about optics and liability as about humane administration.
7. What reporting cannot yet resolve
Available reporting documents statutes, a few uses, and legal fights, but does not yet provide comprehensive empirical data on comparative pain, reliability, or long‑term legal outcomes across every state’s new methods; where such technical or medical validation is absent, public debate fills the gap and courts must adjudicate contested scientific claims [2] [6]. Readers should note that this account synthesizes statutory changes and reporting up to the cited sources and does not claim exhaustive coverage of every state action.