Standing to Seek DNA Testing

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided, 5-1-3, that a Texas death row inmate has standing to challenge that state’s procedures for seeking DNA testing.

Justice Alito, dissenting, was critical of Justice Sotomayor’s majority opinion, to put it mildly:

The Court and I agree on one thing: we should decide this case based on the test adopted in Reed v. Goertz, 598 U. S. 230, 234 (2023). After that, however, the majority veers sharply off course. First, it blatantly alters the Reed test. See ante, at 1–2, 8, 10. Second, it then has the audacity to criticize the Fifth Circuit for applying the real Reed test. See ante, at 9. Third, it ignores critical differences between the situation in Reed and the situation here. See ante, at 9–11. Fourth, it paints a misleading picture of underlying facts and Gutierrez’s decades-long litigation campaign. See ante, at 2–6. Fifth, it fails to recognize the limited scope of the declaratory judgment at issue. See ante, at 9. And sixth, it ignores lawful and binding Texas law regarding the facts that may be considered when a prisoner seeks DNA testing. See ibid.

I am generally not a fan of using the standing doctrine to block efforts to challenge a law. That double-edged sword is regularly used against victims of crime. When the law is valid, it is better to just defend it on the merits, in my opinion.

The case is Gutierrez v. Saenz, No. 23-7809.

In other action, the Court decided that the 2018 reduction of penalties in certain firearms cases applies to pre-2018 defendants whose judgments are vacated on other grounds and resentenced. The case is Hewitt v. United States, No. 23-1002.