Clarence Thomas's killer jurisprudence
Gutierrez contends that such a test would show he should not have received a death sentence and be facing execution. But the 6-3 decision did not get to the merits of his request, focusing instead only on the highly technical question of whether judges could even hear it.
Gutierrez claims that Texas state law creates a ' statutory entitlement ' to DNA testing. More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court found that if a government establishes a benefit for a group of people, no member of the group can be denied the benefit without being afforded due process of law. Since then, millions of Americans who receive any kind of government benefit have been protected by the court's recognition of statutory entitlements.
Neither that fact nor the fact that Guttierez's life was on the line received much attention from any of the justices. But the court's decision became another occasion for Justice Clarence Thomas to carry on his crusade to turn back the clock on modern jurisprudence, even if it meant that Gutierrez would be executed and Americans of all walks of life would lose crucial protections.
Thankfully, Thomas's opinion did not prevail in this case. But that doesn't mean his desire is any less chilling.
In 1986, the late Robert Cover, a justifiably famous Yale law professor, wrote an essay reminding readers that 'Legal interpretation plays on a field of pain and death.' As Cover explained, 'A judge articulates her understanding of a text, and as a result, somebody loses his freedom, his property, his children, even his life.'
Cover wanted judges to keep the consequences of what they do front of mind, and the rest of us not to get lost in the weeds of the opinions that judges write.
Gutierrez has been on death row since 1999, after he was convicted of robbery and murder. The victim was repeatedly stabbed as intruders searched her mobile home for cash. As the Supreme Court explained, under Texas law, a defendant can be sentenced to death if they 'actually caused the death,' 'intended to kill' or 'anticipated' that someone would be killed. Gutierrez has always argued that he did not do any of those things and that DNA will show he was not at the crime scene.
He is trying to take advantage of a provision of Texas law, but he has a problem. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor notes in her majority opinion, the law allows DNA testing when a convicted person can show that they 'would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing.'
Therein lies Gutierrez's problem. He is seeking DNA testing to establish not that he is innocent, but rather that the state had no basis for seeking a death sentence in his case. Gutierrez claims that because the statute does not allow for post-conviction DNA testing where the sentence is at issue, it violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
In his view, refusing access to that testing violated his 'liberty interest' recognized in that amendment. But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said that Gutierrez's litigation should not go forward because there was nothing the courts could do to make the local prosecutor 'reverse course and allow testing.'
Sotomayor's majority opinion said that his suit could proceed because Article 64 established what she called a 'state-created right.' That right went beyond the literal language of the law and entailed 'other procedures essential to realizing the state-created right.'
Enter Justice Thomas. In his view, the very idea of a state-created right is utter nonsense. As he bluntly put it, 'that premise cannot be squared with any principled reading of the Due Process clause.'
Thomas grounded his dissent in what he claimed was the original understanding of the word 'liberty' in the 14th Amendment. At that time, he said, liberty 'referred only to physical restraint. It did not include entitlements to state-created benefits' like access to DNA testing.
Looking to undo the past 50 years of Supreme Court precedent, Thomas invited his colleagues to 'correct the error' the court made when it first recognized state-created rights.
Death penalty or no death penalty, Thomas used the Gutierrez case to carry on his crusade of constitutional purification. And it shows the depth of his commitment to turning back the jurisprudential clock, even if it means that someone will die as a result.
But it is not just Gutierrez's fate that is on the line — so is the fate of millions of people who receive public assistance, student or small business loans, and other government benefits. That is why his colleagues on the Supreme Court should continue to reject Justice Thomas's effort to turn back time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump fired America's economic data collector. History shows the perils.
There is the case of China, where earlier this century local authorities manipulated data to hit growth targets mandated by Beijing, forcing analysts and policymakers to turn to alternative measures to gauge the state of the country's economy. Advertisement Perhaps most famously, there is the case of Argentina, which in the 2000s and 2010s systematically understated inflation figures to such a degree that the international community eventually stopped relying on the government's data. That loss of faith drove up the country's borrowing costs, worsening a debt crisis that ultimately led to it defaulting on its international obligations. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up It is too soon to know whether the United States is on a similar path. But economists and other experts said that Trump's decision Friday to fire Erika McEntarfer, the Senate-confirmed head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was a troubling step in that direction. Janet Yellen, the former Treasury secretary and chair of the Federal Reserve, said the firing was not what is expected from the most advanced economy in the world. Advertisement 'This is the kind of thing you would only expect to see in a banana republic,' Yellen said. Essential data The Bureau of Labor Statistics is officially part of the Labor Department, whose secretary is a member of the president's Cabinet. But the agency operates independently, producing detailed, nonpartisan data on employment, prices, wages and other topics. Economists say that reliable, independently produced statistics are critical to good decision making in both the public and private sector. Officials at the Federal Reserve rely on government-collected data on inflation and unemployment to decide how to set interest rates, which affect how much Americans must pay to get a mortgage or a car loan. 'Good data helps not just the Fed, it helps the government, but it also helps the private sector,' Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, said at a recent news conference. 'The United States has been a leader in that for 100 years,' he added, 'and we really need to continue that in my view.' Experts on government statistics say data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other agencies is unlikely to deteriorate dramatically overnight. The acting commissioner named to replace McEntarfer on a temporary basis, William J. Wiatrowski, is a longtime employee of the agency who is widely respected by experts inside and outside government. The career employees who collect and analyze the data remain in place, using the same methods and procedures they used before McEntarfer was pushed out. But experts who just days ago were defending the integrity of the statistical agencies now find themselves asking uncomfortable questions about the trajectory of economic data in the United States. Advertisement 'If the poverty numbers come in and look great, is the director of the Census going to get a raise?' said Amy O'Hara, a former Census Bureau official who is now a professor at Georgetown University. 'If the household income numbers don't look great what happens then? What about GDP? What about CPI?' Andreas Georgiou knows the challenges of standing up to such political pressure. After he took over Greece's statistical agency in 2010, he found that the country has been severely understating its budget deficits. Those findings ran afoul of Greek authorities, who spent years trying to prosecute him on a variety of charges related to his work, despite independent reviews that supported his conclusions. (He fared better, though, than Olimpiy Kvitkin, a Soviet census official who was arrested and executed when his population count came in lower than Josef Stalin had announced.) Georgiou refused to bend. Reliable statistics are important for policymaking, he said. But they are also essential to democracy. 'Official statistics, government statistics are a mirror that society holds up to itself,' he said. If that mirror is distorted, or broken entirely, then the accountability that is central to a democratic system cannot work. 'If society cannot see itself clearly, then it cannot identify its problems,' he said. 'If it cannot identify its problems, then it cannot find the right solutions. It cannot find the right persons to solve these problems.' Data integrity at risk Trump said he fired McEntarfer because the numbers produced by her agency were 'rigged' to hurt him politically. Experts on the government statistics, including former commissioners in both Democratic and Republican administrations, have called foul on that accusation. The commissioner, who is the bureau's sole political appointee, does not control the numbers that the agency publishes, or even see them until they have been finalized by a staff of career technocrats whose careers typically span multiple presidential administrations. Advertisement Erica Groshen, who led the bureau under President Barack Obama, recalled getting resistance from the agency's staff when she tried to liven up the language of the monthly jobs reports. The bureau's staff insisted that the agency's job wasn't to say whether the glass was half-full or half-empty, only to report that, 'It is an eight-ounce container with four ounces of liquid.' Groshen relented. That is not to say political interference would be impossible. Government statistics rely on hundreds of methodological decisions, many of them judgment calls with no obviously correct answer. A sufficiently sophisticated agency head might, over time, be able to nudge the data in a politically advantageous direction, without any single decision being so egregious that it led to a mass resignation of career employees. 'I could imagine a new commissioner coming in and trying to make changes to those methods and procedures that try to move those numbers one way or the other,' said Katharine G. Abraham, who led the bureau during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. 'They would have to know a lot in terms of where to put the finger on the scale.' Private alternatives There are also blunter approaches. In Argentina in 2007, the government of then-President Néstor Kirchner pushed out the mathematician in charge of the country's consumer price data, then released an inflation figure that was dramatically lower than the one the mathematician had calculated. The public wasn't fooled. Nor were international bond investors, who ultimately turned to alternative sources of inflation data, calculated by researchers outside the government. Advertisement But such alternative sources are inherently limited, said Alberto Cavallo, a Harvard University economist who developed one of the most widely used private inflation indexes in Argentina. 'Private alternatives can complement official statistics, but they are not a substitute,' Cavallo wrote in an email. 'Government agencies have the resources and scale to conduct nationwide surveys -- something no private initiative can fully replicate.' Recently, Cavallo has been publishing data on consumer prices in the United States, which has shown the impact of Trump's tariffs more quickly than the government's data. But while such real-time sources are valuable, they don't carry the 'institutional credibility' of government data. The trouble is that once that credibility is eroded, it is hard to repair -- particularly at a time when partisans on both sides of the political aisle are skeptical of numbers put out by members of the opposing party. Nancy Potok, a former Census official who served as chief statistician of the United States during the first Trump administration, said that in the past there had been strong bipartisan support for the statistical system in Congress and the business community. But partisanship seems to have eroded that support at a moment when a combination of political pressures and long-standing budget challenges are making it most necessary. 'There were some people who really understood the value of the economic data, and now that's not the conversation and those champions aren't there that were there in the past,' she said. 'There's no one leading the charge to make these kind of investments.' This article originally appeared in Advertisement
Miami Herald
4 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's extensive tariffs have already started to generate a significant amount of money for the federal government, a new source of revenue for a heavily indebted nation that American policymakers may start to rely on. As part of his quest to reorder the global trading system, Trump has imposed steep tariffs on America's trading partners, with the bulk of those set to go into effect Thursday. Even before the latest tariffs kick in, revenue from taxes collected on imported goods has grown dramatically so far this year. Customs duties, along with some excise taxes, generated $152 billion through July, roughly double the $78 billion netted over the same time period last fiscal year, according to Treasury data. Indeed, Trump has routinely cited the tariff revenue as evidence that his trade approach, which has sown uncertainty and begun to increase prices for consumers, is a win for the United States. Members of his administration have argued that the money from the tariffs would help plug the hole created by the broad tax cuts Congress passed last month, which are expected to cost the government at least $3.4 trillion. 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Car loan scandal payouts row - what's it about?
A compensation scheme over car finance mis-selling has been proposed by the financial regulator. It comes after a Supreme Court ruling on Friday, that sided with finance companies in two out of three crucial test cases focusing on commission payments made by banks and other credit providers to car dealers. The judgement means millions of motorists will not be able to claim, but it left open the possibility of compensation claims for drivers who were subject to particularly large commission charges - which the Supreme Court said were unfair. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has now said it will consult on running a payout scheme. What's the scandal about? The vast majority of new cars, and many second-hand ones, are bought with finance agreements. About two million are sold this way each year, with customers paying an initial deposit, then a monthly fee with interest for the vehicle. In 2021, the FCA banned deals in which the dealer received a commission from the lender, based on the interest rate charged to the customer. These were known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs). The FCA said this provided an incentive for a buyer to be charged a higher-than-necessary interest rate, leaving them paying too much. Since January, it has been considering whether compensation should be paid to people with these deals before 2021. Any claims on this issue made to the ombudsman, which has 80,000 open cases, or the courts, were effectively on hold until Friday's Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court considered three test cases. The cases focused on whether commission payments made by finance companies to dealers, of which the car buyers were unaware, amounted to bribery - and whether the car dealers themselves had a duty to act on behalf of their customers, rather than in their own interests. If it had been upheld, this could have paved the way for millions to claim compensation, but the court ruled against two of the test cases, siding with finance companies. This has narrowed the scope of people who will be able to claim compensation. How much could victims receive, and when? The consultation on who should be eligible and how much they should receive will begin in October, with the first payments expected next year, the FCA said. Victims are likely receive less than £950 per deal under the proposed compensation scheme, the regulator said. It says that the total estimated cost of the redress will be between £9bn and £18bn. The authority says it is "hard to estimate precisely at this stage the total cost to industry of the scheme", but millions of consumers could be eligible. It added that the amount of money victims receive will depend on the "degree of harm suffered by the consumer and the need to ensure consumers continue to be able to access affordable loans for motor vehicles". Those who have already complained do not need to do anything, the regulator said, advising those who have yet to complain to contact their car loan provider rather than using a claims management company. It added that it "anticipate[s] requiring firms as far as possible to make customers aware they may be eligible and what they may need to do" and that claims "should cover agreements dating back to 2007". Who would foot the bill? The industry is expected to cover the full costs of any potential compensation scheme, including any administrative costs. Lenders - including some of the UK's biggest banks and specialist motor finance firms - have set aside more than £2bn for potential payouts already. Lloyds Bank has put aside £1.15bn, and Santander has allocated £295m. Financing companies have also set aside millions, including Close Brothers (£165m), Northridge Finance (£143m) and MotoNovo (through the bank FirstRand, £140m). Some of that money has been earmarked to cover legal and administrative costs. The FCA says any redress scheme would need to balance fairness to consumers who lost out, with ensuring "the integrity of the motor finance market, so it works well for future consumers". What was the case that succeeded in the Supreme Court? On Friday, the Supreme Court reversed earlier court rulings in three test cases which said that hidden commissions on car loans were unlawful. The one test case which was upheld was that of Marcus Johnson, 34, from Cwmbran, Torfaen, who bought his first car - a Suzuki Swift - in 2017. He was not informed the car dealership was being paid 25% commission, which was added on to what he had to pay back. "I signed a few documents and then drove away in the car," he told the BBC. He said he had no option but to use finance when he bought the car, describing it as "heartbreaking" to find out so much extra money had been taken. Mr Johnson said he was "pleased for myself" that his case was won, "but not for the hundreds of others" who will miss out. "It's a win, but it's a really big bag of salt to go with it." In his case, the Supreme Court said the terms of his finance deal were unfair due of the size of the commission payment, and the fact he was appeared to have been misled over the relationship between the finance firm and the dealer. The FCA said Friday's judgement "helps us because we have been looking at what is unfair and, prior to this judgment, there were different interpretations of the law coming from different courts". Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
