Emergency Application — Michael L. King, Petitioner v. Florida

No. ______

______________________________________________________________

In the Supreme Court of the United States

______________________________________________________________

MICHAEL KING,

Petitioner

v.

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________________

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

______________________________________________________________

CAPITAL CASE

DEATH WARRANT SIGNED

Execution Scheduled: March 17, 2026, at 6:00 PM ET

______________________________________________________________

To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of

the United States:

The State of Florida has scheduled the execution of Petitioner, Michael King,

for Tuesday, March 17, 2026 at 6:00 PM ET. Pursuant to the Supreme Court Rule 23

and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), Mr. King respectfully requests a stay of execution pending

the disposition of his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari accompanying this application.

STANDARDS FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION

The standards for granting a stay of execution are well established. Barefoot v.

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895 (1983). There “‘must be a reasonable probability that four

members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious

for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction; there must be a

significant possibility of reversal of the lower court’s decision; and there must be a

likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.’” Id. (quoting

White v. Florida, 458 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers).

PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED A STAY OF EXECUTION

The question raised in Mr. King’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is sufficiently

meritorious for a grant of a writ of certiorari. The underlying issue presents a

significant, compelling question of constitutional law and a stay is necessary to avoid

Mr. King being executed in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States

Constitution before that question is resolved. Madison v. Alabama, 586 U.S. 265

(2019); Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399

(1986).

It is indisputable Mr. King will be irreparably harmed if his execution is

allowed to go forward. The balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of a stay.

Florida’s interest in the timely enforcement of judgments handed down by its courts

must be weighed against Mr. King’s continued interest in his life. See Ohio Adult

Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272, 289 (1998) (“[I]t is incorrect . . . to say that a

prisoner has been deprived of all interest in his life before his execution.”) (O’Connor,

2

J., plurality opinion). Florida has a minimal interest in finality and efficient

enforcement of judgments, while Mr. King has a right and significant interest in

ensuring that his execution comports with the Constitution. In addition, the

irreversible nature of the death penalty supports granting a stay. “[A] death sentence

cannot begin to be carried out by the State while substantial legal issues remain

outstanding.” Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 888. Mr. King submits there is a significant

possibility of the lower court’s reversal, should this Court grant the request for a stay

and review of the underlying petition. This Court’s intervention is urgently needed to

prevent Mr. King’s imminent execution despite the protections from the death

penalty provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Florida’s refusal to recognize Mr. King’s claim for what it is, a failure to follow

protocol claim resulting in violations of his equal protection and due process rights,

as opposed to a challenge to the method of execution, has prevented Mr. King from

being meaningfully heard during post-warrant litigation. This Court should enter a

stay of execution to allow Mr. King to demonstrate the maladministration of Florida’s

lethal injection protocol is a violation of Mr. King’s rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution. Mr. King’s case presents important

constitutional issues which should be fully addressed by this Court free from the

extreme time constraints set by the warrant signed by the governor on February 13,

2026 scheduling his execution for March 17, 2026, which is only * days from the filing

of this application.

3

Because Mr. King has raised a claim based on Fourteenth Amendment equal

protection concerns and following the Eleventh Circuit precedent from DeYoung v.

Owens, 646 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) and Arthur v. Thomas, 674 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir.

2012) an evidentiary hearing is required.

In a recent cert denial Justice Sotomayor commented:

Going forward, I hope that Florida and its courts will recognize the

paramount importance of ensuring that it conducts executions

consistently with its approved protocol, and assuring all involved that it

is preventing any infliction of needless suffering on those being executed

in the State. By continuing to shroud its executions in secrecy, Florida

undermines both the integrity of its own execution process and,

potentially, this Court’s ability to ensure the State’s compliance with its

constitutional obligations.

Trotter v. Florida, 607 U.S. ___, Case No. 25-6853 (25A926) (Feb. 24, 2026)

(Sotomayor, J., respecting the denial of the application for stay of execution and

denial of certiorari). Distinguished from Trotter, King has also raised and preserved

the issue of the circuit court denying King’s request for additional records pursuant

to Rule 3.852. See Justice Sotomayor’s footnote:

“In earlier proceedings in this case, Trotter also challenged the denial of

his own public-records request before the Florida courts, arguing that

he was entitled to records relating to the administration of executions

that have recently taken place in Florida. He does not raise any claim in

this Court relating to the denial of his request for additional records.”

Id. Mr. King has preserved the records issue for this Court’s review. A stay is

necessary so a thorough factual basis can be established regarding this issue of great

importance.

4

CONCLUSION

“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard

“at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S.

545, 552 (1965). Mr. King’s meritorious issue cannot possibly be heard in a

meaningful manner with just days left until his execution. The important

constitutional issue presented by Mr. King’s case requires a full appellate review that

is not truncated by his imminent execution.

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. King respectfully requests this Court grant his

application for a stay of execution scheduled for March 17, 2026, to address the

compelling constitutional question in his case on the merits.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED this 11th day of March, 2026.

/s/ Ali A. Shakoor

ALI A. SHAKOOR

Florida Bar No. 0669830

Assistant CCRC-M

/s/ Debra R. Bell

DEBRA R. BELL

Florida Bar No. 0973068

Assistant CCRC-M

Counsels of Record for Petitioner

*Member of the Bar of the Supreme

Court

5