During oral arguments in Gutierrez v. Saenz, a case involving a Texas man, Ruben Gutierrez, who was convicted in 1999 of the murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison, the justices were focused on whether removing Texas' "Chapter 64" restrictions on DNA testing would change anything for him, or whether the state would still deny testing for other reasons.
The most assertive questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who expressed concern that the state's view of redressability, or whether a court can effectively address the harm suffered by a plaintiff, would upset how courts have traditionally established legal standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
"What I'm really, really worried about is that this case, which seems very small and narrow and about a particular guy and DNA testing and the interpretation of the statute, could actually have major implications for how we understand standing," she said.
Although he acknowledged he was present at the trailer park in Brownsville where Harrison was robbed and killed, Gutierrez sought DNA testing to prove he didn't take part in her murder and thus didn't qualify for capital punishment. Other evidence pointed to other people as the killers, he said.
But state courts repeatedly denied Gutierrez's request, finding that even if the DNA evidence were to be tested, it would not have proved he was innocent of capital murder, only that he was not inside the victim's home.
In 2019, Gutierrez filed a civil rights lawsuit against Brownsville District Attorney Luis Saenz, challenging the constitutionality of the testing procedures.
A federal court agreed with him in 2021, finding that Texas's law violated due process because it allowed postconviction DNA testing only if it could prove innocence of the conviction, but not innocence of the death penalty.
The court reasoned that Texas granted prisoners the right to file a successive habeas petition to argue they don't deserve the death penalty but then denied access to DNA testing that could support that claim, rendering the right "illusory."
Texas appealed the ruling, arguing that Gutierrez lacked standing to bring his DNA testing claim. In February 2024, the Fifth Circuit ruled against him, vacating the district court's decision and dismissing the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.
In its ruling, the appeals court said that in Gutierrez's case, Texas courts had already denied his DNA request on separate grounds — not just because of Chapter 64 — making federal intervention meaningless. It held that Gutierrez's case was distinct from Rodney Reed's in Reed v. Goertz
, where the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that Texas' DNA procedures could be challenged under the federal civil rights law, and courts should assume prosecutors will comply with a ruling rather than speculate otherwise.In his certiorari petition filed in June, Gutierrez said the Fifth Circuit's ruling created a split with the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, both of which he said have applied the standing doctrine exactly as the Supreme Court directed in Reed's case.
"This court should hold that Mr. Gutierrez has standing for the same reason," Anne Elizabeth Fisher, a federal defender arguing on behalf of Gutierrez, told the high court on Monday.
Several justices zeroed in on the issue of standing.
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Fisher to clarify whether, when absent a court order a prosecutor denies a prisoner DNA testing, the prisoner still has the basis to sue. Fisher replied that it did.
"As this court decided in Reed, the district attorney simply averring that they won't turn over DNA evidence isn't enough to defeat standing," she said.
Justice Elena Kagan asked a similar question.
"Suppose that the DA here said, notwithstanding what anybody says about Chapter 64, we're just not turning this over, and pounds the table 10 times so you know that they're serious. Does that defeat your standing?" she asked.
Fisher replied that it would not, as a district attorney would still be bound to the court's determination that the DNA testing statute is unconstitutional.
Justice Samuel Alito expressed frustration over the case's duration.
"This litigation has been going on for more than 25 years," he said. "I just am interested in knowing whether it's going anywhere."
Justice Alito then turned to standing.
"What if the district attorney held a news conference and he swore on a stack of Bibles ... that 'the declaratory judgment that you want would have absolutely no effect on my decision to turn over DNA evidence because I agree with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that it would not influence the decision on death eligibility. Plus, I also agree with the trial court that all of this was done for purposes of delay.' Would you have standing?" he asked.
Fisher said the district court's declaration finding the statute unconstitutional provides standing.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor sought to methodically go through the key moments of Gutierrez's case, and at some point listed pieces of evidence such as scrapings under the victim's fingernails and a hair intertwined with Harrison, which could potentially support the petitioner's arguments.
And at times she felt compelled to slow down the arguments' back-and-forth to make sure she grasped the minutiae.
"Slow down. I'm not trying to hurt you," Justice Sotomayor told Fisher, sparking laughter. "I'm trying to clarify things, OK?"
Gutierrez is represented by Anne E. Fisher of the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Saenz is represented by William Francis Cole of the Office of the Attorney General of Texas.
The case is Gutierrez v. Saenz, case number 23-7809, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
--Editing by Adam LoBelia.