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.

##