
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
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A voter targeted by Judge Griffin in 2024 NC Supreme Court race testifies before Congress
Mary Kay Heling of Raleigh testifies before Congress about ending up on NC Judge Jefferson Griffin's list of people whose votes he wanted discounted despite the fact that she had supplied all required registration information and showed her license to vote. (Photo: Screenshot from video) GOP Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin's attempt to throw out more than 60,000 votes to win a Supreme Court seat landed in the national spotlight on Tuesday, this time through congressional testimony from one of the people he targeted. Mary Kay Heling, a Raleigh resident, told the Committee on House Administration that she ended up on Griffin's list last year even though she had voted without problems in primaries and general elections since 2016. The committee hearing was focused on maintaining accurate voter rolls. While Republicans said states could get away with not doing much to ensure only qualified voters were on their lists, Democrats warned that legal voters were being caught in Republican purges. Part of Griffin's challenge was based on the claim that voters failed to provide a partial Social Security number or driver's license number on their voter registration forms. Heling said she provided the last four digits of her Social Security number on the registration form and presented her driver's license at polling places when state law required voter ID. 'Never once did I doubt my vote was valid,' she said. After the November election, she received a postcard from the state GOP saying her vote might be challenged. She scanned the QR code on the postcard and spent more than an hour searching unsuccessfully for her name among thousands of others. It was later, searching a more user-friendly database, that she found she was on Griffin's list. She went to the Wake Board of Elections office to identify and correct any problem. 'It took work and persistence,'' she said. 'It was frustrating and time consuming.' Though state appellate courts ruled in favor of elements of Griffin's lawsuits, a federal judge ended Griffin's attempt to overturn Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs' victory. Griffin's election lawsuit mirrored a Republican National Committee and state GOP lawsuit that sought to have more than 225,000 voters purged from the rolls before last year's election, claiming the missing numbers meant those voters were not legally registered. The House committee also heard testimony about maintaining accurate voter lists from two conservative group representatives, J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, and Justin Riemer, president and CEO at Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. They said the National Voter Registration Act's standards for voter roll maintenance are too low. Riemer encouraged the committee to eliminate or modify the 90-day 'blackout period' found in federal law that prohibits the systematic removal of voters from the rolls 90 days before a primary or federal general election. Relying on U.S. Postal Service change of address information is insufficient, he said, because it fails to capture everyone who has moved. Federal law should require states to exchange registration information with one another, he added. 'This is wholly inadequate given the multitude of data sources available to election officials today,' he said. A nonprofit organization called ERIC was established to help states maintain voter registration files. It offers members reports on people who have moved within state, out of state, and identifies duplicate voter registrations. Conservatives, however, grew suspicious of ERIC and Republican-run states pulled out of the group. North Carolina passed a law prohibiting membership. NPR reported that the far-right website Gateway Pundit started the Republican rush to leave ERIC. Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, the committee's chairman, said voter list maintenance is crucial to election integrity. 'Inaccurate voter rolls could open the door to election fraud,' he said. 'It can hinder public confidence in our elections.' States can avoid properly maintaining their voter lists because federal standards are low, Steil said. Democrats on the committee used Heling's experience as an example of how difficult it is for voters to defend themselves when they are wrongfully targeted. Though Griffin's lawsuit failed, Democrats representing other states said registrations of legal voters had been erased in voter purges. It's voter purges that undermine confidence in elections, said U.S. Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the committee's senior Democrat. 'The Trump administration's dangerous, false rhetoric' going back to the 2020 election erodes democracy and threatens the voting rights of all Americans, he said. He called Griffin's effort to cancel Heling's vote 'part of a concerted effort to concentrate partisan power.' Proper voter list maintenance is important to secure elections, he said. 'But systematic voter purges, often illegally conducted in the run-up to federal elections, pose a real threat to voters.' The U.S. Department of Justice sued the North Carolina Board of Elections over the missing numbers in the voter database. In consultation with the DOJ, the state Board of Elections developed a plan to collect the information. Last week, elections officials vowed that no voters would be removed from the rolls. People who have not supplied the numbers will be required to vote provisionally. If they don't put the information on the provisional ballot application, their votes in state races won't count. Republicans have taken the majority on the state Board of Elections and hired Republican Sam Hayes, former general counsel to GOP House Speaker Destin Hall, to run the state elections office. North Carolina U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy (R- 3rd District), a member of the committee, said the previous election board administration failed to address the problem of missing identification numbers. 'I'm happy to say now the legislature has taken control of the Board of Elections and turned it over to Republican control,' Murphy said. 'And now, the Republicans have begun the Registration Repair Project to ensure that all eligible voters have accurate, complete information on file.' Morelle referred to the lawsuit against North Carolina as an example of Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department that is putting 200,000 people at risk of not being able to vote. The Board of Elections is keeping an updated list of people who need to supply ID numbers. As of Tuesday evening, about 101,000 people were on it.


The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
The next generation of leaders learn that Radio Free Europe is worth saving
It was an early morning, 12 days and three cities into our summer study abroad, yet my very tired students were at our hostel door, on time and dressed nicely, as warned. Our group, from a regional state university, had snagged an invitation to the Resilient Europe conference at Prague's 17th century Czernin Palace. Once there, the students perked up, dazzled by being in the same room as the Czech minister of foreign affairs and 150 other government and non-governmental experts from the European Union and NATO. They were clearly the only college students in the room. Later, one student showed me his notes. At the top, he'd written simply 'Russia = Bad.' I laughed, but it wasn't untrue. One after another, government officials from the Czech Republic, Latvia, Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania and Estonia described relentless Russian election interference. Russian digital misinformation had provoked a 2021 migrant crisis in Europe, which has only worsened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine a year later. The point of the conference was for participating democracies to learn strategies from one another, because 'the information arena is a crucial battlefield,' one representative said. Ironically, they announced, the Czech foreign ministry's email account had become the victim of a cyberattack just the night before, albeit by China. One of those crucial battlefields in the information arena was our next stop. We had arranged to visit the headquarters of Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty across town, which was still open only because of a court challenge to the Trump administration's decision to take away its congressionally appropriated funding. Radio Free Europe, which provides uncensored, trusted news to audiences in 23 countries where a free press is nonexistent or under threat, is still at risk even after furloughing staff, reducing programming and letting go of hundreds of freelancers. Again, my students were awestruck, but for different reasons. First, by the numerous searches and scans to get into the compound housing the news agency. And second, by the reasons for the high security: Trump isn't the only person who wants to kill it. Nineteen of its journalists have been killed — five since 2018 — by regimes that do not want their people to have real news. Another three of its journalists remain unjustly imprisoned in Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan. Most Americans know little about this historic service because the news it does isn't aimed at us, though it can be accessed in English on the Radio Free Europe website. My students were clearly proud that the U.S. government pays for real, independent journalism that reaches 47 million people each week in their own languages. Some of those people find Radio Free Europe at great risk. In Belarus, for instance, just following or liking something on Radio Free Europe's social media can land you in prison, we were told. Yet, they don't have any alternative, truthful source of information. This means that Radio Free Europe's Belarussian journalists (now working in Prague) know they can never go back to their home country without being arrested and imprisoned by a president who doesn't want real news. For doing this job, they might never see their families again. 'Our journalists really feel the mission,' said Jakub Tesar, the fellowships and academic relations officer for Radio Free Europe. 'We just always have to make sure the people who work for us understand the risk.' Yet, under President Trump this spring, the U.S. Agency for Global Media inexplicably disconnected satellites carrying Radio Free Europe to Russia, so its reach there has decreased. Such decisions have thrilled Russia, where regime officials told The Moscow Times that they were glad to see the service defunded, particularly because it reaches Russians without abiding by state censorship. The message got through to my students, who called the tour a 'privilege.' One later wrote that 'a lot of dangerous and powerful people … stand to gain by silencing the truth which these journalists seek out, often causing them to put their lives on the line for their work.' In summing up her study abroad, she wrote that she'd found a deeper respect for journalism, which is so much under threat. 'I just hope they know that there are people and students (like us) who support the work that they do each and every day,' she wrote. 'I couldn't even imagine cutting funding for an organization that brings unbiased media to places that don't have it.'


Newsweek
43 minutes ago
- Newsweek
The Business of Obedience—Trump's Blueprint for Authoritarian Capitalism
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Three days after comedian Stephen Colbert called Paramount's $16 million settlement with President Donald Trump "a big fat bribe," CBS canceled his top-rated late-night show. The timing wasn't coincidental, it was calculated, and it represents the most brazen example yet of how Trump has weaponized presidential power to extract what amounts to total capitulation from corporate America. Since his election victory, Trump has orchestrated the largest corporate shakedown in American history. Disney paid $15 million to settle a defamation case legal experts called frivolous. Meta handed over $25 million for suspending Trump's social media accounts after January 6. Paramount paid $16 million over routine interview editing. Most audaciously, Trump has extracted nearly $1 billion in "pro bono" commitments from nine major law firms through executive orders that stripped security clearances and threatened to destroy their businesses. President Donald Trump answers questions during a press conference on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump answers questions during a press conference on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington, pattern is unmistakable. Trump targets companies with government leverage points, demands payment, and punishes those who resist. When CBS executives needed Federal Communications Commission approval for their $8 billion merger with Skydance Media—run by the son of Trump ally Larry Ellison—they paid the president's demanded settlement. When Colbert publicly called it what it was, they silenced him permanently. This isn't capitalism. It's an oligarchy. The law firm shakedowns reveal the system's true mechanics. Trump issued executive orders against firms like Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie, citing their representation of his critics or participation in investigations against him. Faced with losing security clearances, federal contracts, and access to government buildings, these firms capitulated with shocking speed. Paul Weiss agreed to $40 million in "pro bono" work. Skadden, Arps pledged $100 million. Additional firms each committed $125 million apiece. These aren't valid contracts but coerced payments extracted under duress. Yet corporate executives have calculated time and again that paying Trump's tribute was cheaper than fighting. The international parallels are chilling. President Vladimir Putin perfected this model with Russian oligarchs, using tax investigations and regulatory pressure to force compliance and extract wealth. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seized businesses from perceived enemies in Turkey, forcing "donations" to state causes. Trump has simply refined the technique for American democracy, using executive orders and regulatory approval processes as leverage points. What makes Trump's approach particularly insidious is its veneer of legality. Unlike Putin's crude asset seizures, Trump's extortion operates through ostensibly voluntary settlements and pro bono commitments. Companies can claim they weren't technically forced to pay—they just faced continued harassment if they didn't. The payments flow to Trump's presidential library or favored causes, creating plausible deniability while enriching his political infrastructure. Corporate executives defend these payments as rational business decisions. They're wrong. By normalizing presidential extortion, they're destroying the rule of law that makes American capitalism possible. No business can operate successfully in a system where the president's personal whims determine regulatory outcomes and government access. The Colbert cancellation crystallizes the stakes. When a network cancels its most successful late-night host three days after he criticized their tribute payment to the president, the message is unmistakable: criticism of Trump will not be tolerated, regardless of ratings or revenue. CBS' transparently false claim that this was "purely financial" only emphasizes their capitulation's brazenness. Democratic senators are now investigating whether Skydance made additional commitments to Trump beyond the announced settlement. The Writers Guild has called for state prosecutors to examine potential bribery violations. But investigations move slowly, while Trump's extortion machine operates in real time. The business community's response will define whether America remains a democratic republic or becomes a kleptocracy where presidential favor determines corporate survival. Every payment normalizes the system. Every capitulation invites the next demand. Trump has made clear this is just the beginning. He's boasted about putting law firms to work negotiating trade deals and suggested expanding his corporate pressure campaign. Having successfully extracted $1 billion through extortion, why would he stop? Corporate America faces a choice: resist now, while democratic institutions still function, or accept permanent subordination to presidential whims. The cost of resistance keeps rising, but the cost of submission is democracy itself. The oligarchy has arrived. The only question is whether anyone will fight it. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.