For the first time in over a century, the Supreme Court is addressing the legality of a method of execution. Oral arguments were held on Monday in a case that will decide whether lethal injection practices in Kentucky amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Outside the Supreme Court, attorney Donald Verrilli said the court should ban lethal injections that use a three-drug cocktail.

Donald Verrilli: “The obligation here on the state is to bring about a humane execution. That’s why we have the 8th Amendment. That’s why we have a prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishment,' because it affirms the dignity of our system, and our respect for everyone, even those who have committed the most heinous crimes. And that’s why the states have got to do what they can to reduce the risk of the awful kind of torture that this kind of execution can produce when it goes wrong.”

Attorney Roy Englert defended the State of Kentucky.

Roy Englert: “The State has no obligation to guarantee a pain-free execution, but Kentucky does everything in its power to ensure to bring about a pain-free execution.”

According to the New York Times, the opponents of lethal injection made little headway Monday in their effort to persuade the Court that the Constitution requires states to change the way they carry out executions. Since September, when the high court agreed to hear this case, there has been a de facto national moratorium of executions by lethal injection. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Indiana’s voter ID law.