logo
Clarence Thomas's killer jurisprudence

Clarence Thomas's killer jurisprudence

The Hill16-07-2025
Constitutional interpretation can sometimes seem abstract and disconnected from the fate of the people whose cases the Supreme Court decides. One could certainly get that feeling from reading the court's June 26 decision about whether death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez could get the state of Texas to test DNA in its possession.
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Planned Parenthood closes 5 Northern California clinics, citing Trump budget bill
Planned Parenthood closes 5 Northern California clinics, citing Trump budget bill

San Francisco Chronicle​

time22 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Planned Parenthood closes 5 Northern California clinics, citing Trump budget bill

President Donald Trump's budget cuts to Medicaid have forced Planned Parenthood Mar Monte to shutter five clinics across Northern California and the Central Coast, including one in South San Francisco, the group said Thursday. The GOP-led federal spending bill that Trump signed into law earlier this month eliminated federal Medicaid funding for any type of medical care to organizations that perform abortions. Mar Monte is the largest Planned Parenthood affiliate in the country, with health care centers from Bakersfield, the Bay Area, Stockton and Sacramento. The now-shuttered facilities also include San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Gilroy and Madera. The closures represent the first wave of how the recent federal budget cuts will have real-life consequences for health clinics across the country — particularly for low-income Americans. They are also a crushing blow to a state that set it up to be an abortion haven after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. In the year after the decision, political leaders in California — led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature — passed more than a dozen new laws and invested more than $200 million to increase access across the state. Thursday's announcement drives home the extent of the federal government's tremendous power to impact abortion access. Roughly 80% of Mar Monte's patients received Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid. Ten million people are expected to lose their health insurance because of nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Meanwhile, the wealthiest Americans will receive a disproportionate share of the tax cuts funded by those cuts, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. In just one week since Mar Monte stopped billing Medicaid, the Planned Parenthood affiliate with 35 locations said it saw 5,000 patients — amounting to about $1.7 million in care costs it covered without reimbursement — Mar Monte Chief of Staff Andrew Adams told the Chronicle Thursday. 'It's just not sustainable,' said Adams. 'We can't keep our doors open if we continue doing that.' Mar Monte said the funding law also forced it to end services in family medicine, behavioral health and prenatal care. The Planned Parenthood affiliate estimates it will lose $100 million in annual revenue from care that can no longer be reimbursed under the law because they provide abortion care. Americans tend to support abortion rights, according to public polling. A May 2025 Gallup Poll found that 51% of respondents described themselves as 'pro choice' while 43% described themselves as 'pro life.'Of those respondents who said they were 'dissatisfied' with the nation's abortion polices, 42% said they would like to see them made 'less strict' while 14% wanted them to be 'stricter.'

FEARS AROUND SAFETY AND HINDU TEMPLE ATTACKS EMERGE AS KEY CONCERNS AT CAPITOL HILL EVENT
FEARS AROUND SAFETY AND HINDU TEMPLE ATTACKS EMERGE AS KEY CONCERNS AT CAPITOL HILL EVENT

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

FEARS AROUND SAFETY AND HINDU TEMPLE ATTACKS EMERGE AS KEY CONCERNS AT CAPITOL HILL EVENT

CoHNA's 4th Annual Hindu Day of Advocacy brought together lawmakers, researchers, students and constituents WASHINGTON, July 24, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- A packed room on Capitol Hill saw a cross section of Americans of the Hindu faith come together, for the fourth year, to celebrate the contributions of their community and highlight the problems they face. The event, on the heels of CoHNA's five year anniversary, was attended by more than a 100 Hindu delegates from 17 states across the US who visited close to 150 Congressional offices to raise awareness. It drew more than 25 lawmakers (Congressional representatives and staffers) who joined the event and heard from a variety of speakers—academics, students, human rights leaders and more. "An overarching theme during the event was around safety and the ability to freely practice one's religion. It was echoed in the thoughts of several lawmakers who were shocked to know how anti-Hindu hate is playing out in the US," said CoHNA president and co-founder Nikunj Trivedi. From multiple temple attacks to Hindu students being bullied and doxxed by peers on elite campuses; from being gaslit by academics and colleagues to facing institutional indifference and inaction when wronged; the Hindu community has been under fire. Hinduphobia is a problem that plays out in many ways—from obnoxious levels of hate and bullying online to more subtle institutional blows like 'caste' laws and policies which seek to profile and target Hindus in America. Broad Congressional Support CoHNA's advocacy day received bi-partisan support from Democratic and Republican Congresspersons, united in their encouragement of advocacy, passionate in their defense of religious freedom, and equally dismayed by the attacks on Hindu places of worship. Welcoming the CoHNA community back to Capitol Hill, Representative Rich McCormick (R-GA) shared insights on why such events matter and reflected on his own long involvement with the community—both professionally and personally. He emphasized our shared values, including a focus on family, faith, and country, on growing the future, and on the importance of nurturing relationships. Representative Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) shared how proud he is of his Hindu faith. Speaking of growing up in the tradition that has given so much to the world and influenced American society through yoga, meditation, and ancient philosophy, he said, "I'm happy to see many young Hindus here, championing the cause of Hindus and their rights, both here and abroad. We should not be afraid of being Hindu! The future generation is crucial for our community's voice." Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA) shared a laugh with CoHNA board member and vice president Rajeev Menon as he highlighted his appreciation for the shared values he has observed. The congressman congratulated CoHNA for enabling the Hindu community to advocate for their place in American society, emphasizing the critical importance of religious liberty as guaranteed by the US constitution, and its foundational role in ensuring prosperity and innovation. Representative Sanford Bishop (D-GA), who spoke during the dinner reception, shared stories of his long association with the Hindu community and the impact it has made. He added that he was well aware of the attacks happening on the community, thanks to CoHNA's efforts. "Our country is founded on principles of freedom and equality, and the Hindu community is as much part of it as anyone else. Elected officials have a responsibility to ensure that 'you' (meaning the Hindu community) feel included and safe," he stated. Representative Thomas Kean Jr (R-NJ) also spoke of his support for the Hindu community and offered encouragement for continued engagement, especially given his involvement with the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "CoHNA is doing important grassroots work to promote understanding of Hinduism and to celebrate the community's rich heritage, values, and traditions", he added. Wrapping up the evening, Representative Shri Thanedar (D-MI) called out the explosion of hate and bigotry across the world, exemplified by the ongoing atrocities in Bangladesh where Hindus are being cleansed from their homeland, where a monk has been arrested on trumped up charges, and where temples have been destroyed. He emphasized the need for action via economic sanctions and more. Rep. Thanedar also called out the growing number of temple attacks in the US—in New York and in California. "These attacks have to stop," he said, promising to continue his fight against such hate. He thanked CoHNA and event attendees for "showing up and standing up in this fight for justice and fairness because if one temple is attacked, all temples are attacked." Expert Testimony Delivering the keynote speech, leading scientist Dr Lee Jussim of the Rutgers Social Perceptions Lab, shared highlights and data from an academic study, titled "Instructing Animosity." Released in November 2024, the study conducted on a nationally representative sample of 876 individuals, used a treatment-control approach to probe the impact of caste training on the perceptions of ordinary Americans about Hindus. Of critical note, the study found that exposure to caste discrimination narratives in the workplace and academia results in bias against Hindus as a whole. Prof. Jussim's presentation showcased results from an experiment where, after reading a short description of 'caste discrimination' from Equality Labs content, participants in the study were much more likely to endorse Hitler's quotes (with the word 'Brahmin' replacing 'Jew'). In another experiment, where a Hindu-sounding college admissions officer rejected a Hindu-sounding candidate, study participants exposed to anti-caste rhetoric were more likely to assume that the admissions officer was upper caste and biased, and feel the decision was unfair—despite no supporting evidence. Alarmingly, many exhibited a willingness to punish the admissions officer, and to view Hindus, in general, as racist! Drawing on two decades of advocacy and research work, human rights activist and author Richard Benkin emphasized that while Hindus have long been persecuted in Bangladesh, the situation has deteriorated in the past year. "The new Bangladeshi government is now playing an active role in Hindu persecution—particularly through the elimination of Hindu educators and the (mis)use of institutional power," Benkin said. He cautioned that Islamist groups are poised for political power after the 2026 election, and that US inaction risks letting Bangladesh turn into a "Chinese vassal state" like Pakistan. Benkin urged lawmakers to take action before it's too late. The highlight of the evening reception was a talk by globally acclaimed filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri, whose film 'The Bengal Files' sheds light on the forgotten genocide of Hindus during India's partition in 1947. An Afternoon Packed with Testimonies and Data The event began with mantras and a solemn moment of silence in memory of the Hindu civilians killed in the past few months in places as far apart as Pahalgam (Kashmir, India) and Bangladesh. Testimony from Kashmiri community leaders Mohan Sapru and Amit Raina brought home historical and personal context to the recent terror attacks. American Hindus from Bangladesh bore testimony to the deep and continuing persecution the community has faced. A data driven presentation focused attention on the growing problem of physical attacks against Hindu temples in the United States—six in the past 18 months. Worse, the attacks have drawn little attention or outrage, with no arrests or prosecutions. When Hindus embrace their Hindu identity, they are targeted with accusations of dual loyalty, ideological labels, and subject to public shaming designed to make them water down their identity. Political leaders like Krystle Kaul and Bhavini Patel, who spoke at the event, shared heartfelt testimony of the harassment and personal targeting they faced for their backgrounds. A powerful panel of student voices from the University of California, Berkeley, and Rutgers University brought to life the hostility Hindu youth face on campus for simple things like seeking to open Hindu clubs, celebrating Hindu festivals and traditions, and holding peaceful vigils mourning dead Hindus in Bangladesh, Kashmir or elsewhere. About CoHNA CoHNA is a grassroots level advocacy and civil rights organization dedicated to improving the understanding of Hinduism in North America by working on matters related to the Hindu community and by educating the public about Hindu heritage and tradition. For more information, please visit or follow us on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Coalition of Hindus of North America

Lawyers from both sides of the aisle decry Trump attacks on judges at California conference
Lawyers from both sides of the aisle decry Trump attacks on judges at California conference

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Lawyers from both sides of the aisle decry Trump attacks on judges at California conference

It's time for the legal community to speak up about the increasing threats to judges across the country, a diverse pair of legal scholars said Thursday at the conference of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 'Lawyers have to stand up to this, stand up for judicial independence," said Paul Clement, who has argued for conservative causes and was the Justice Department's solicitor general under President George W. Bush. Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Berkeley who has argued cases in the Supreme Court in favor of racial diversity and other liberal causes, cited Republican calls to impeach judges who have ruled against President Donald Trump. 'Being a judge now is more important than it's ever been in American history,' Chemerinsky told the audience of hundreds of lawyers and judges at the court's conference in Monterey. 'This is a time when we need judicial courage. We need the lawyers to be courageous too.' And in a reference to Trump's apparent disregard of judges' orders to stop sending immigrants, some of them with legal status, to prisons in Latin America, Chemerinsky said, 'If any president can violate court orders, can lock any of us up, the word for that is dictatorship.' Clement, as a Justice Department lawyer, argued before the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, to try to overturn President Barack Obama's national health insurance law, the Affordable Care Act, and in defense of a law banning federal benefits for same-sex married couples. As a private attorney, he was on the winning side of last year's ruling allowing judges to decide the meaning of contested federal regulations, overturning a 1984 decision that required courts to accept an agency's interpretation when the meaning of a law was unclear. 'I'm a big believer in executive power,' Clement told the conference. But 'if you have an administration that is trying to push the limits … you're in a period of extraordinary tension.' He criticized Trump's Justice Department for prosecuting a federal judge in Wisconsin who directed an undocumented immigrant to the back door of her courtroom when federal immigration agents were looking for him, and for recent statements by Attorney General Pam Bondi denouncing 'unelected' federal judges who have frustrated the administration's program. It's time to 'turn down the volume,' Clement said. They spoke three days after the latest Republican proposal to break up the 9th Circuit, the nation's largest federal appeals court. The court hears appeals of federal cases from California, eight other Western states and the territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Its rulings are binding on federal judges in all of those states, including conservative dominions such as Idaho and Montana, and it has a 16-13 majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The legislation by two Idaho Republicans, Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, would leave California, Hawaii and Guam in the 9th Circuit and create a new 12th Circuit court for the other states. It is the 60th such bill introduced since 1985, and would appear to have little chance of overcoming a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. The measure, Risch said in a statement, 'would split and modernize the 9th Circuit, allowing for more manageable caseloads and justice that aligns with the values of Idaho.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store