The U.S. Supreme Court case Clarence E. Hill v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections et al., 2005 revolved around the issue of whether a death row inmate could challenge the method of his execution as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment without filing a habeas corpus petition (a legal action against unlawful detention). Hill was sentenced to death in Florida but argued that lethal injection would cause him unnecessary pain and suffering due to his medical condition which violated his constitutional rights. The lower courts dismissed Hill's claim because it wasn't filed as a habeas corpus petition, however, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hill stating that he didn't need to file such a petition since he wasn't challenging his conviction or sentence itself but rather its implementation method.

In the dissenting opinion for Clarence E. Hill v. James R. McDonough, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the court's decision to grant a stay of execution and allow Hill to challenge Florida's method of lethal injection was inappropriate because it allowed him to delay his punishment through litigation tactics. He contended that Hill had ample opportunity in previous years to raise this issue but strategically waited until the last minute, thus manipulating the legal system for his benefit at taxpayers' expense and causing unnecessary distress for victims’ families waiting on justice served. Furthermore, he asserted that there is no constitutional right against painful executions; rather, only those involving torture or deliberate infliction of pain are prohibited by Eighth Amendment standards.