Constitutional Accountability Center Constitutional Accountability Center
Access to Justice

RELEASE: As Justice Jackson Points Out, Seemingly Narrow Death-Penalty Case Would Have “Major Implications” for Standing Jurisprudence if Court Adopted Texas’s Argument

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gutierrez v. Saenz, a case in which the Court is considering whether a federal court, as part of its analysis of a Section 1983 plaintiff’s standing to pursue a procedural due process claim against state officials, must make a particularized determination as to whether those officials will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment, Constitutional Accountability Center Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:

As many Justices today seemed to recognize, this case shouldn’t be complicated.  Ruben Gutierrez is not asking the Court to exonerate him.  He is not asking the Court to find him ineligible for the death penalty.  He is not even asking the Court to order DNA testing.  He’s simply seeking an order that lets him in the courthouse doors—specifically, to vindicate his right to due process, which he claims has been violated by Texas’s fundamentally unfair procedures for seeking post-conviction DNA testing.

As we explained in our amicus brief filed in support of Mr. Gutierrez, and as several justices echoed at oral argument today, to pursue a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff does not need to show at the outset that he or she will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim if afforded a constitutionally sound process.  As applied here, Mr. Gutierrez should be able to get in the courthouse doors on his procedural due process claim without having to prove that he will necessarily procure DNA testing at the end of the day.

If the Court were to adopt Texas’s position, it would “actually have major implications for how we understand standing,” as Justice Jackson put it.  Indeed, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, the Court has never applied a rule of “who cares about the procedures; you’re going to lose anyway” when evaluating due process claims brought in federal court.  It should not start now.

##

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas

In United States ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Flowers Foods v. Brock

In Flowers Foods v. Brock, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from arbitration “last-mile” delivery drivers who transport goods between two points in the same state to their final destinations,...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System

In T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires dismissal of a request for relief from a state-court decision that did not reach the state’s highest...
Access to Justice
January 14, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Justices Pose Difficult Questions to State-Affiliated Corporation that Claims Immunity from Suit

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Galette v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. and New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Colt

In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation and New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt, the Supreme Court is considering whether state-affiliated corporations have sovereign immunity.
Access to Justice
October 6, 2025

RELEASE: Supreme Court Considers the Scope of a Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Villarreal v....