The Supreme Court on Monday overturned the conviction and death sentence of Oklahoma inmate Richard Glossip, citing prosecutorial misconduct that likely tainted his 2004 trial.

The ruling in Glossip v. Oklahoma overturns the conviction of a defendant who has spent more than two decades on death row and sends the case back for a new trial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, highlighted the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony from the state’s key witness, Justin Sneed.

“Because the prosecution violated its constitutional obligations under Napue v. Illinois by knowingly allowing false testimony to go uncorrected, Mr. Glossip is entitled to a new trial,” Sotomayor wrote, referring to the error that took place in Glossip’s case at the state court level.

The majority opinion emphasized newly uncovered evidence that Sneed, who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and prescribed lithium, falsely testified that he had never seen a psychiatrist. Sotomayor noted that Oklahoma prosecutors not only knew this testimony was false but failed to correct it during Glossip’s trial — an omission that could have influenced the jury’s verdict given that Sneed’s testimony was the only direct link implicating Glossip in the 1997 murder of motel owner Barry Van Treese.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who served on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing Oklahoma cases, recused himself from the decision.

In dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito criticized the majority’s reliance on new evidence presented long after the trial, arguing that the false testimony was immaterial to the outcome. Thomas, joined by Alito and partially by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, contended that the defense failed to challenge Sneed’s testimony effectively during the trial and that the evidence against Glossip remained strong despite the inconsistencies.

Thomas said the majority “stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favor,” referring to Glossip. Barrett said she would not have ordered the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to set aside Glossip’s conviction and that she would rather have corrected the state court’s “misstatement of Napue” and sent the case back for further proceedings.

SUPREME COURT APPEARS DIVIDED OVER OKLAHOMA DEATH ROW APPEAL

The decision on Monday comes after years of legal challenges and a rare admission from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican, who supported Glossip’s petition for a new trial after an independent investigation revealed withheld evidence and concerns about the integrity of the prosecution’s case.

Glossip, who has spent over two decades on death row, now awaits a new trial in Oklahoma state court. The ruling marks a significant victory for death penalty reform advocates and raises fresh questions about prosecutorial conduct in capital cases.