Supreme Court Rules Texas Death Row Inmate Can Challenge DNA Testing Law

Understanding Gutierrez v. Saenz

On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in Gutierrez v. Saenz, holding that a Texas death row inmate has the legal standing to challenge the state’s restrictive DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause. This 6-3 decision has important implications for prisoners seeking post-conviction DNA testing and highlights ongoing tensions between state procedural rules and federal constitutional rights.

Background: The Crime and Conviction

Ruben Gutierrez was convicted of capital murder in 1998 for his involvement in the killing of Escolastica Harrison, who was stabbed to death in her mobile home. The State’s theory at trial was that Gutierrez wielded one of the two screwdrivers used in the stabbing. The jury convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Gutierrez has consistently maintained that the police coerced his confession that he was inside Harrison’s home, asserting that he never entered it and only thought his accomplices would rob an empty mobile home without harming anyone. His central argument is that he should not have been sentenced to death because he did not “actually cause” Harrison’s death, “intend to kill” her, or “anticipate that a human life would be taken”—all requirements for a death sentence under Texas law.

The Long Fight for DNA Testing

For nearly 15 years, Gutierrez has sought DNA testing of crime-scene evidence, such as Harrison’s nail scrapings, a loose hair, and various blood samples, to prove he was not in the home. This evidence, he argues, would demonstrate his ineligibility for the death penalty, even if he remains guilty of capital murder as a party to the robbery.

Texas’s Article 64 (also referred to as Chapter 64) allows DNA testing if a convicted person establishes by a “preponderance of the evidence” that they “would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained”. However, Texas courts repeatedly denied Gutierrez’s requests for DNA testing:

• 2010: The TCCA reasoned that even if his DNA was not found, it wouldn’t establish his innocence of capital murder because he could still be a party to the robbery that resulted in death.
• 2019: Courts again denied his motion, with the TCCA reiterating that DNA testing was unavailable solely to show death penalty ineligibility.

The Federal Lawsuit and Path to the Supreme Court

Gutierrez then filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that Texas’s DNA testing procedures violated his liberty interests in utilizing state post-conviction procedures. The District Court agreed in part, finding it fundamentally unfair that Texas provides a right to challenge a death sentence via habeas petitions but prevents obtaining DNA testing to support those petitions unless innocence of the underlying crime is established.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this judgment, holding that Gutierrez lacked standing because his claimed injury was not “redressable.” The appeals court reasoned that even if Gutierrez won his constitutional challenge, the prosecutor would be unlikely to allow testing given the state court’s previous rulings.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the Fifth Circuit, holding that Gutierrez does have standing. The Court found the case indistinguishable from Reed v. Goertz (2023), another challenge to Texas’s DNA testing law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, emphasized that standing does not depend on whether a favorable decision will ultimately result in the prosecutor turning over evidence, or if the prosecutor might find another reason to deny the request. The Court rejected what it called an attempt to “manufacture mootness,” stating that “[h]olding otherwise would allow all manner of defendants to manufacture mootness.”

Key Legal Principles

The Gutierrez v. Saenz decision reinforces several important principles:

1. Liberty Interests in Post-Conviction Procedures: The ruling reaffirms that individuals convicted in state court have a “liberty interest in demonstrating [their] innocence with new evidence under state law.”
2. Redressability in Standing Analysis: A ruling in Gutierrez’s favor would provide a remedy for his injury “by removing the allegedly unconstitutional barrier” that Texas DNA-testing laws “erected between Gutierrez and the requested testing.”
3. Federal Court Jurisdiction: The decision clarifies that federal courts can review challenges to state DNA testing procedures when those procedures may unconstitutionally restrict access to evidence.

Dissenting Views

Justice Alito’s dissent argues that the ruling “blatantly alters” the Reed test and “muddies the waters of standing doctrine.” The dissent expressed concern about “decades-long delays” in capital cases and Texas’s “important interest” in finality.

Justice Thomas offered a more fundamental critique, arguing that the Court has “no business intervening in this case” because “Gutierrez’s suit rests on a non-existent ‘liberty interest,'” as the Due Process Clause, as originally understood, protects freedom from physical restraint and natural rights, not “entitlements to government benefits” like state-created post-conviction procedures.

Implications for Texas and Beyond

Access to the courts to pursue a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate certain success with respect to retaining their underlying protected interests. This is because individuals convicted in state court possess a “liberty interest in demonstrating [their] innocence with new evidence under state law,” meaning that a state-created right to post-conviction procedures can “beget yet other rights to procedures essential to the realization of the parent right.”

In Gutierrez v. Saenz, the Supreme Court affirmed that the redressability inquiry for standing in such a claim does not involve “a guess as to whether a favorable court decision will in fact ultimately cause the prosecutor to turn over the evidence.” Rather, a declaratory judgment that removes an “allegedly unconstitutional barrier” between the individual and the requested testing is sufficient to redress the injury.

The Court emphasized that a procedural due process claim “is not mooted by the defendant’s mid-appeal promise that, no matter the result of a lawsuit, the ultimate outcome will not change,” as allowing such an argument would permit defendants to “manufacture mootness.” This approach highlights that procedural due process is fundamentally about the right to a fair proceeding and access to the mechanisms intended to provide relief, and thus, courts must closely attend to the nature of the asserted constitutional right in Section 1983 cases, which in Gutierrez involved the denial of access to requested DNA evidence.

The Gutierrez v. Saenz ruling has significant implications for criminal justice in Texas and potentially nationwide:

1. Enhanced Access to Federal Courts: For Texas inmates, the ruling provides a clear path to challenge state DNA testing laws in federal court if they believe those laws unconstitutionally restrict their access to evidence.
2. Burden on State Prosecutors: It means that prosecutors cannot simply deny standing by stating they will not comply with a favorable court ruling.
3. Potential for More Litigation: This could lead to more federal §1983 litigation challenging the procedural aspects of Texas’s post-conviction DNA testing statute.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court’s decision does not guarantee that Gutierrez will receive DNA testing. Rather, it ensures that his constitutional challenge to Texas’s DNA testing procedures can proceed in federal court. The case now returns to the lower courts, where the merits of Gutierrez’s due process claim will be considered.

For Gutierrez himself, who has been on death row for over 25 years, this represents a significant but incremental victory. Shawn Nolan, a lawyer for Gutierrez, released this statement: “Today, Ruben Gutierrez is one step closer to proving that he was wrongfully sentenced to death.”

Broader Context

The Gutierrez v. Saenz case highlights the ongoing debate about the proper balance between finality in criminal proceedings and ensuring that potentially innocent individuals—or those wrongfully sentenced to death—have meaningful opportunities to prove their claims. It also underscores the complex interplay between state criminal procedures and federal constitutional rights.

As DNA technology continues to advance and play a crucial role in criminal justice, cases like Gutierrez v. Saenz will likely continue to shape how courts balance the competing interests of finality, federalism, and fundamental fairness in the American legal system.

The decision serves as a reminder that procedural hurdles should not become insurmountable barriers to justice, particularly in capital cases where the stakes could not be higher.