A timeline of events in the death penalty case of Richard Glossip

On Thursday, former death row inmate Richard Glossip was freed from jail hours after he was granted bond by an Oklahoma judge while awaiting a new trial for a 1997 killing.

During his nearly 30 years behind bars, Glossip came so close to execution multiple times that he was served “last meals” on three separate occasions in 2015. He has long insisted he is innocent in the murder of his former boss, Oklahoma motel owner Barry Van Treese. The U.S. Supreme Court threw out his conviction and death sentence last year.

Here is a look at key events in Glossip's case and appeals.

Jan. 7, 1997: Barry Van Treese is beaten to death at an Oklahoma City motel that he owned. Two of his employees, Justin Sneed and Richard Glossip, are soon arrested in connection with the killing.

Aug. 14, 1998: Glossip is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Prosecutors argue at his trial that Van Treese was killed in a murder-for-hire scheme. Motel handyman Sneed testified that he killed their boss after Glossip promised to pay him $10,000.

July 17, 2001: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals throws out Glossip's murder conviction and orders him a new trial.

Aug. 27, 2004: Glossip is sentenced to death again after second trial ends with a new murder conviction.

April 29, 2014: Oklahoma uses the surgical sedative midazolam for the first time during the execution of Clayton Lockett, who writhes and groans on the gurney. The execution process gets halted, but Lockett dies 43 minutes later. The state later blames an improperly placed intravenous line, not the new drug mix.

Nov. 20, 2014: Glossip’s scheduled execution is delayed to allow Oklahoma to obtain drugs and train staff on a new protocol.

Jan. 28, 2015: After Glossip has been served what is supposed to be his final meal, the U.S. Supreme Court halts his execution and those of two other Oklahoma prisoners while considering their legal challenge to the state's use of midazolam in executions.

June 29, 2015: A divided U.S. Supreme Court upholds Oklahoma’s use of midazolam during executions.

Sept. 15, 2015: For the second time, Glossip is served what is supposed to be his last meal: chicken fried steak with mashed potatoes and a dinner roll, fish and chips, a bacon cheeseburger and a strawberry malt.

Sept. 16, 2015: Hours before Glossip is scheduled for execution, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals grants him a two-week reprieve to review claims of new evidence supporting his innocence.

Sept. 29, 2015: For the third time, Glossip is served what is supposed to be his final meal: a medium pizza, two orders of fish and chips, a bacon cheeseburger and a strawberry malt.

Sept. 30, 2015: Prison officials are preparing to execute Glossip when Oklahoma's governor stays the procedure because one of the lethal drugs being used didn't match the state's execution protocol.

Oct. 2, 2015: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, at the request of the state's attorney general, puts all executions on indefinite hold as officials review Oklahoma's execution procedures.

Feb. 13, 2020: Oklahoma announces plans to resume executions using a three-drug lethal injection protocol.

May 5, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court again halts Glossip's execution, set for May 18, at the urging of Oklahoma's Republican attorney general, who has concluded Glossip's trial was “unfair and unreliable.”

Feb. 25, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court throws out Glossip's murder conviction and death sentence, ruling prosecutors violated his right to a fair trial by allowing Sneed, their key witness, to give testimony they knew was false.

June 9, 2025: Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond says he plans to try Glossip again for murder. While agreeing his previous trial was unfair, Drummond says he doesn't believe Glossip is innocent.

May 14, 2026: An Oklahoma judge orders a $500,000 bond for Glossip, granting him a chance to leave jail while awaiting trial. Hours later, Glossip walks out of an Oklahoma City jail.

Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.

Former death row prisoner Richard Glossip, center, exits a detention facility alongside his wife Lea Glossip, right after being granted bond while awaiting retrial Thursday, May 14, 2026, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)

Former death row prisoner Richard Glossip, center, exits a detention facility alongside his wife Lea Glossip, right after being granted bond while awaiting retrial Thursday, May 14, 2026, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)

Former death row prisoner Richard Glossip, center, exits a detention facility alongside his wife Lea Glossip, right, after being granted bond while awaiting retrial Thursday, May 14, 2026, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)

Former death row prisoner Richard Glossip, center, speaks to media after exiting a detention facility after being granted bond while awaiting retrial Thursday, May 14, 2026, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)

Former death row prisoner Richard Glossip, center, exits a detention facility alongside his wife Lea Glossip, right, after being granted bond while awaiting retrial Thursday, May 14, 2026, in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Nick Oxford)

FILE - Oklahoma County Sheriff's deputies lead longtime death row inmate Richard Glossip to a courtroom, June 9, 2025, at the Oklahoma County Courthouse in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Sean Murphy, File)

FILE - Oklahoma County Sheriff's deputies lead longtime death row inmate Richard Glossip to a courtroom on June 9, 2025, at the Oklahoma County Courthouse in Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/Sean Murphy, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday preserved women’s access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion, rejecting lower-court restrictions while a lawsuit continues.

The court’s order allows women seeking abortions to continue obtaining the drug, mifepristone, at pharmacies or through the mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor. Access is likely to remain uninterrupted at least until into next year as the case plays out, including a potential appeal to the high court.

The justices granted emergency requests from makers of mifepristone, who are appealing a federal appeals court ruling that would require women to see a doctor in person and halt delivery of mifepristone through the mail. The federal Food and Drug Administration, which first approved mifepristone for use in abortion in 2000, stopped requiring in-person visits five years ago.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas writing that the two companies, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, are not entitled to the court's action to spare them “lost profits from their criminal enterprise.”

Anti-abortion groups, frustrated with President Donald Trump’s administration, are pushing the FDA to move faster with a review that they hope will result in restrictions on mifepristone, including blocking its prescribing via telehealth platforms. The Republican administration says the work takes time.

Earlier this week, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary resigned after months of criticism from Trump’s political allies, including abortion opponents.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and similarly aligned groups had called on Trump to fire Makary over the slow pace of the mifepristone review.

The court is dealing with its latest abortion controversy four years after its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.

The case before the court stems from a lawsuit Louisiana filed to roll back the Food and Drug Administration’s rules on how mifepristone can be prescribed. The state claims that the policy undermines the ban there, and it questions the safety of the drug, which has repeatedly been deemed safe and effective by FDA scientists.

Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe, agreed that the state's efforts have been thwarted by medical providers and private organizations that mail the pills to women in Louisiana, despite the abortion ban. Danco and GenBioPro “are obviously aware of what is going on yet nevertheless supply the drug and reap profits from its felonious use in Louisiana,” he wrote.

Thomas said those who mail the pills are in violation of the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that has long gone unenforced and bans mailing any “article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.”

Lower courts concluded that Louisiana is likely to prevail, and a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mail access and telehealth visits should be suspended while the case plays out.

The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol. Medication abortions accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023, the last year for which statistics are available.

Telehealth prescribers were prepared to switch to sending abortion patients a regimen that uses only misoprostol.

While Thursday’s ruling keeps the status quo in place for now, abortion-rights advocates warn that the case isn’t settled forever.

“We are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place,” Serra Sippel, executive director of The Brigid Alliance, which helps coordinate and fund travel and other logistics to assist women traveling for abortion, said in a statement. “Patients and providers should not be forced to wait on court rulings to know whether people can access critical health care.”

The decision is “extremely disappointing” but not a defeat, said Gavin Oxley, a spokesperson for the anti-abortion advocacy group Americans United for Life. “The Supreme Court still has the opportunity to hear the case in full and bring justice to Louisiana,” he said.

The current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago, when the justices blocked a 5th Circuit ruling in a suit filed by anti-abortion doctors and kept mifepristone widely available, over dissents from Alito and Thomas.

Then, in 2024, the high court unanimously dismissed the doctors’ suit, reasoning they did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue.

In the current dispute, mainstream medical groups, the pharmaceutical industry and Democratic members of Congress have weighed in cautioning the court against limiting access to the drug. Pharmaceutical companies said a ruling for abortion opponents would upend the drug approval process.

Debate over the safety of mifepristone has churned for more than 25 years. The FDA has eased a number of restrictions initially placed on the drug, including who can prescribe it, how it is dispensed and what kinds of safety complications must be reported.

Despite those determinations, anti-abortion groups have filed a series of petitions and lawsuits against the agency, generally alleging that it violated federal law by overlooking safety issues with the pill.

Trump’s administration has been unusually quiet at the Supreme Court. It declined to file a written brief recommending what the court should do, even though federal regulations are at issue.

The case puts the administration in a difficult place. Trump has relied on the political support of anti-abortion groups but has also seen ballot question and poll results that show Americans generally support abortion rights.

Both sides took the administration’s silence as an implicit endorsement of the appellate ruling.

Associated Press writer Ali Swenson contributed to this report from New York. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

FILE - Boxes of the drug mifepristone sit on a shelf at the West Alabama Women's Center in Tuscaloosa, Ala., March 16, 2022. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File)