Sharon Basch is a 3L at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law filing occasional dispatches from Washington DC this semester.
I made my way to the US Supreme Court press box for JURIST Monday morning to listen to oral arguments in Gutierrez v. Saenz, a case that could reshape the landscape of DNA testing for death row inmates in Texas. Ruben Gutierrez, sentenced to death for the 1998 murder of Escolastica Harrison, is challenging the constitutionality of state laws that restrict post-conviction DNA testing.
Gutierrez argues that DNA evidence could prove he is ineligible for the death penalty, even if it doesn’t fully exonerate him. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his request for testing, citing state law that limits testing to cases where it would determine guilt or innocence, not merely the sentence.
Gutierrez subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, claiming the state’s DNA testing procedures violated his due process rights. While a federal district court initially ruled in his favor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit overturned that decision. The Supreme Court has since stayed Gutierrez’s execution to consider the case.
At the core of the dispute is the question of Gutierrez’s legal standing to challenge the Texas law. His legal team argued that the law is unconstitutional because it prevents inmates from using DNA evidence to prove ineligibility for the death penalty. They argued that a declaratory judgment deeming the law unconstitutional would eliminate the state prosecutor’s justification for denying DNA testing.
The respondents, however, argued that Gutierrez lacks standing, citing other procedural hurdles that would impede his access to DNA testing even if the law were declared unconstitutional. They also argued that Gutierrez has not met other legal requirements for DNA testing, such as demonstrating that the evidence would prove his innocence.
During the oral arguments, Justices Kavanaugh, Sotomayor, and Jackson appeared receptive to Gutierrez’s arguments. Justice Kavanaugh expressed skepticism that a “recalcitrant defendant can defeat redressability,” a key legal concept concerning whether a court ruling can remedy the claimed injury. Justice Sotomayor questioned the state’s resistance to DNA testing, especially with evidence suggesting another suspect’s potential involvement.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s line of questioning focused on the implications of the case for the traditional understanding of standing, particularly “redressability.” She voiced concern that the arguments presented by both sides represent a departure from historical interpretations. Jackson highlighted a potential shift from a straightforward analysis of whether a court order can remedy an injury to a more granular approach that considers the absence of any other potential justification for denying relief. She warned that this shift could blur the lines between jurisdictional analysis and merits discussions.
Conversely, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch appeared far more skeptical of Gutierrez’s claim. They questioned whether a declaratory judgment would actually lead to DNA testing, given the possibility that the district attorney could still deny testing on other grounds.
The Court is now considering whether to affirm the lower court’s ruling that Gutierrez does not have standing. The justices’ divergent views suggest a potentially complex and nuanced ruling, with significant implications for death row inmates in Texas and the broader interpretation of standing in legal proceedings. A decision is expected in the coming months.
