Nevada's efforts to obtain midazolam for an execution appear to have been illegal.

Because of this, a judge blocked the execution.

There is something strange going on here, something not mentioned in the article.

Why does Nevada procure drugs surreptitiously to cover up the fact that its method is illegal, rather than change its laws to legalize it?

Why do they believe it is necessary to give a sedative before fentanyl? Isn't fentanyl supposed to give a feeling of euphoria, like opioids generally?

I oppose the death penalty on principle. If these technicalities and legal details put an end to the death penalty in the US, I will celebrate the outcome. But I doubt that the states that want to continue execution will be stopped for long by problems of detail. Surely they will construct a legal channel to do what they wish to do. I find it incredible that they haven't already done so.

What am I missing?

Everyone: call on big US banks to divest from the private prisons for immigrants.

US citizens: oppose Ivanka Trump and Marco Rubio's plan to cut Social Security (in the name of family leave).

Pakistani presidential candidate Imran Khan is trying to win the votes of religious fanatics by endorsing the law that makes execution the penalty for "blasphemy".

It is unjust to punish people for conviction for "blasphemy", but that is unusual. What usually happens is that they get lynched before the trial.

FEMA is about to evict 1800 Puerto Rican families from temporary housing.

That might have been ok if it had done its job promoting construction of replacement permanent housing.