Supreme Court will review Richard Glossip’s case a second time. Here’s why that matters

After more than 26 years in prison and three “last” meals, Oklahoma death row prisoner Richard Glossip’s appeal over his claim of his innocence will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to an order released Monday.

The Supreme Court justices will hear arguments about whether to overturn Glossip’s murder conviction, considering questions his defense team raised, such as the credibility of a star witness’ testimony.

Glossip has maintained throughout a total of nine scheduled executions that he did not conspire to kill Barry Van Treese, his boss at the motel where he worked, in 1997. A coalition of anti-death penalty activists, legal experts and state leaders have also called the conviction into question.

In its brief order, the high court also asked to hear arguments over whether, when his conviction was upheld by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in April, the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act was “adequate and independent” grounds for not granting Glossip relief.

This case most likely won’t be argued until the fall, when the Supreme Court’s next term begins. Glossip’s stay of execution, granted by the Supreme Court, remains in effect until they resolve his case.

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not make a decision on this appeal, according to the order. He previously was part of a three-judge panel that ruled on Glossip’s case when it was in the 10th Circuit of Appeals.

Monday’s development is the continuation of a decadeslong bid to have the nation’s highest court weigh in on this individual execution. While it’s not unprecedented for justices to rule on death penalty cases, the court has now twice weighed in on the circumstances surrounding Glossip’s conviction.

In his state of Oklahoma, some Republican lawmakers have cited “system-wide failures” of the state’s justice system as a reason to call for a pause on executions.

READ MORE: Why some Republicans in Oklahoma want to pause executions

The Supreme Court met in conference last week to discuss Glossip’s case and his defense team’s claim of innocence, which was bolstered by Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma’s attorney general, who wrote in a petition that Glossip did not receive a fair trial in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and that the state had erred in its prosecution.

“It is time — past time — for his nightmare to be over,” said John Mills, one of Glossip’s attorneys, in a statement on Monday. Mills added that the justices should reverse the decision to uphold Glossip’s conviction from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, “which has inexplicably refused to accept the State’s confession of error.”

Ahead of the court’s decision, Mills had told the PBS NewsHour that making their case to the Supreme Court was the “last, best option” for the 60-year-old death row prisoner. The high court granted Glossip his stay of execution in May, days before he was scheduled to be executed.

“Richard vacillates between just grateful to be alive and waiting for the next shoe to drop,” he said before Monday’s order. “I think he appreciates how unusual it is to get a stay of execution from the Supreme Court, but at the same time he’s horrified by what he’s been through already and what he could still face.”

Should the Supreme Court rule against him, Mills said, Glossip’s defense team will pursue other avenues of litigation to keep him alive.

How did this case end up before the Supreme Court?

Some Oklahoma lawmakers held a “Justice Rally for Richard Glossip” at the Oklahoma State Capitol in May. Photo by Doug Hoke/The Oklahoman/USA Today Network

Glossip was convicted of arranging the 1997 murder of Van Treese, the owner of a motel in Oklahoma City where Glossip worked as a manager. Prosecutors argued that Glossip promised to pay handyman Justin Sneed $10,000 to kill Van Treese.

But Glossip’s lawyers have said the state’s case against him was filled with prosecutorial misconduct and based almost entirely on statements made by Sneed, who has since recanted his testimony and admitted to lying about Glossip’s involvement in the murder.

Drummond, a Republican, made a plea in April to spare Glossip’s life after he disclosed the findings of an independent counsel investigation he appointed that had “raised doubts about the conviction.”

Drummond argued in his letter to the Supreme Court that it would be an “unthinkable” error if the execution was allowed to continue. He cited new evidence that may undermine the state’s original conviction and argued that Glossip’s conviction is “unsustainable” and “a new trial imperative.”

Drummond said he was pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision Monday.

“Public confidence in the death penalty requires the highest standard of reliability, so it is appropriate that the U.S. Supreme Court will review this case,” he said in a statement. “As Oklahoma’s chief law officer, I will continue fighting to ensure justice is done in this case and every other.”

What is Glossip’s history with the Supreme Court?

This was the second time Glossip’s case was discussed before the Supreme Court.

The court ruled in 2015 against a petition by Glossip and two other death row prisoners to challenge Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, following two botched executions. The justices ruled 5 to 4 that the state’s execution method did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle said Glossip’s first appearance before the Supreme Court was notable for Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy’s open hostility against people on death row and toward capital defense lawyers. Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent was also significant because he laid out a case for what’s wrong with the death penalty and why it needed to be reexamined, she added.

Kennedy retired in 2018 and Breyer in 2022, and the new makeup of the court with its conservative majority has “not been kind toward death row inmates,” Coyle said. It’s also rare for Glossip’s case to be back at the Supreme Court a second time.

“These things happen, but it’s unusual for an individual to get a second shot,” she said.

Why Oklahoma Republicans are calling for a pause in executions

The Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma, where Richard Glossip was set to be executed in 2015. The Supreme Court halted this scheduled execution, while it weighed a challenge to the state of Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol. Photo by Nick Oxford/Reuters

The decision in this case also comes on the heels of calls from two Republican lawmakers in Oklahoma, both supporters of Glossip, to pause all executions in the state until it can reexamine all 36 pending death row cases.

State Reps. Kevin McDugle and Justin J.J. Humphrey say people on death row have been subject to system-wide failures in the Oklahoma justice system, such as ineffective defense counsel and prosecutorial overreach.

In Glossip’s case, more than 30 Republican lawmakers argued there was a problem with the testimony and treatment of Sneed, who ultimately pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony against Glossip. Sneed was sentenced to life in prison without parole for fatally beating Van Treese, while Glossip was sentenced to death.

At the request of multiple lawmakers, the law firm Reed Smith conducted an independent investigation into Glossip’s case last year to closely examine what led to his1998 guilty verdict. The resulting 343-page report raised concerns regarding both the case and the conviction.

By interviewing individuals incarcerated with Sneed on unrelated charges, investigators discovered that Sneed had claimed sole responsibility for robbing Van Treese and had intended to use the stolen money for drugs with his girlfriend. Jurors who convicted Glossip and sentenced him to death did not hear these accounts. Additionally, Sneed’s history of mental illness went undisclosed during Glossip’s trial, while the investigations uncovered a memo revealing collaboration between the trial prosecutor and Sneed’s lawyer before his testimony.

“Right now I don’t believe in the death penalty in Oklahoma. I don’t,” McDugle told the NewsHour in October. “That’s why we are trying to fix it, because if we can’t fix it to where we can execute those who deserve to be executed and quit executing those who don’t deserve to be executed … then we need to get rid of it.”