Clarence Thomas Decries Supreme Court Intervention

Newsweek

2 days ago

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decried the Supreme Court's involvement in a death row case in his dissent from the case on Thursday.
The court determined that Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has a right to sue a local district attorney with a civil rights complaint for failing to do a DNA test at the scene of the murder for which he was convicted, but insists he did not commit.
Dissenting against the court's majority opinion, Thomas said, "Intervention serves no purpose other than to exacerbate the already egregious delays endemic to capital litigation," and said the court did not stick to the original interpretation of the Due Process clause to come to this conclusion.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is seen before swearing in Pam Bondi as attorney general in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 5, 2025.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is seen before swearing in Pam Bondi as attorney general in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 5, 2025.
Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images
Why It Matters
Several cases on the Due Process clause are in the courts right now based on the Trump administration's assertions that undocumented migrants do not have the right to due process, and will likely end up in front of the Supreme Court.
If Justice Thomas does not see having access to DNA testing in a trial as a part of due process, he may also side with the Trump administration's limited interpretation of the clause.
What To Know
Gutierrez was found guilty in 1999 of the murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison. He confessed he had been planning on robbing her house, but insists to this day he did not kill her, and that DNA evidence will show he was not at the scene of the crime.
His lawyers successfully argued to the court that he could sue District Attorney Luis Saenz. This is due to Texas's Article 64, which says that convicts are allowed to request DNA samples if they can establish they "would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing."
This undated photo provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shows inmate Ruben Gutierrez.
This undated photo provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shows inmate Ruben Gutierrez.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice via AP
The case was brought to the Supreme Court, as Gutierrez's lawyers said he had been denied federal civil rights by being denied the right to sue under Texas's Article 64.
However, Justice Thomas disagreed. In his dissent, Thomas said, "The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect Gutierrez's asserted 'liberty interest.' As originally understood, 'liberty' in the Fourteenth Amendment likely referred only to freedom from physical restraint. It did not include entitlements to government-created benefits."
He said that this ruling creates a "tool for obstruction," which is getting in the way of Gutierrez's sentence, and slowing down capital punishment in the state of Texas, adding, "There is every reason to think that the ultimate claim of actual innocence on which Gutierrez's case rests is baseless."
Thomas is referred to as a textualist, and often rules based on interpretations of the Constitution as of when it was written, lending to more conservative rulings.
What People Are Saying
Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent: "The Due Process Clause protects an individual's natural liberty from government interference. It does not guarantee entitlements to government benefits like Texas's voluntarily adopted post-conviction procedures. By intervening to revive this suit, the Court facilitates precisely the 'unjustified delay' that it is supposed to prevent in capital cases."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her ruling in favor of Gutierrez: "Gutierrez has standing to challenge Texas's DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court is set to rule on several landmark cases on June 27, but these cases do not involve the Trump administration's interpretation of due process. These cases will arrive at the Supreme Court either later in 2025 or in 2026.