Access to Justice

RELEASE: A Win for Rodney Reed, for Justice, and for Fidelity to the Original Meaning of Section 1983

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decision in Reed v. Goertz,  Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

This opinion may be short, but it is powerful in its effect: paving the way for Rodney Reed, a death-row defendant who has consistently maintained his innocence for over twenty years, to seek DNA testing of crime-scene evidence, and settling that, consistent with Section 1983’s history and original meaning, the accrual of a claim brought pursuant to that statute must be tailored to the nature of the constitutional right asserted. Agreeing with the arguments in the brief CAC filed in support of Reed, the Court today held that Reed’s procedural due process claim did not accrue until “the state litigation ended and deprived Reed of his asserted liberty interest in DNA testing—when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reed’s motion for rehearing.” And echoing our brief, the Court explained that the “soundness of that straightforward conclusion” is reinforced by “core principles of federalism, comity, consistency, and judicial economy.” We are pleased that the Court reached this conclusion, recognizing that the text and history of Section 1983 indicate that it is a vehicle fundamentally designed to remedy state and local violations of federal law.

##

Resources:

Case page in Reed v. Goertz: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/reed-v-goertz/ 

Supreme Court Can Improve Access to Courts Next Term in Reed v. Goertz: https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/supreme-court-can-improve-access-to-courts-next-term-in-reed-v-goertz/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
April 28, 2026

CAC Release: In Cisco v. Doe Argument, Justices Grapple with the Scope of Liability Under Two Critical Human Rights Statutes

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Cisco Systems...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
April 27, 2026

Human Rights Suit Over Cisco Work for China Heads to Supreme Court

Bloomberg Law
CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen was interviewed by Bloomberg Law about our brief in Cisco...
Access to Justice
April 17, 2026

The Most Offensive Thing a Supreme Court Justice Can Do Is Be Honest About the Supreme Court

Balls & Strikes
This Week In Other Stuff We Appreciated Judges Overseeing Louisiana’s Landmark Oil Cases Have Financial...
Access to Justice
April 20, 2026

CAC Release: Court Considers Whether to Expand or Restrict Authority of Federal Courts to Collaterally Review State Court Judgments

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in T.M. v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Michelle Berger
Access to Justice
April 14, 2026

Doctors Hope Justices Maintain Shield Against Med Mal Suits

CAC Kendall Fellow Michelle Berger discussed CAC's amicus brief in T.M. v. University of Maryland with Law360....
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Cisco Systems v. Doe

In Cisco Systems v. Doe, the Supreme Court is considering, among other questions, whether the Torture Victim Protection Act imposes liability on those who aid and abet torture.