In the forthcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to assess over 12 new cases, all of which have emerged from the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit, located in New Orleans, a jurisdiction that has developed a reputation for rulings more conservative than the Supreme Court’s own. Included in the cases are a death-row inmate’s plea for DNA testing of evidence he believes could clear his name, a disagreement over the limits of a federal agency’s authority to allow a private entity to store used nuclear fuel, and the contentious debate on the timing courts should consider in determining the justifiability of the force an officer employs in a fatal shooting scenario.
The instance of the death penalty involves a man called Ruben Gutierrez. He finds himself contesting the denial of DNA testing, convinced that it could absolve him from the charges of the 1998 murder of a woman from Texas. After the Fifth Circuit gave clearance for his execution by dismissing his appeal, Mr. Gutierrez implored the Supreme Court to take on his case. A stay of execution was granted by the justices in July just moments before the penalty was due to be carried out.
The core issue of this case lies in whether an inmate can introduce a constitutional challenge against a state DNA statute that potentially restricts access to evidence that could prove his innocence. Accused in the fatal assault of an elderly woman during a home invasion in Brownsville, Texas was Mr. Gutierrez, along with two other individuals. The robbery took place near the Mexican border, leading to his conviction in 1999.
Mr. Gutierrez, however, has consistently contested that he was not present in the house at the time of the murder and had no knowledge of any plan to end the woman’s life. He persists in his quest for DNA testing of the evidence collected at the crime scene, which includes items like shirt stained with blood, nail clippings and a loosely attached hair from the victim’s finger.
Prosecutors have resisted his push for testing, arguing that these tests wouldn’t conclusively prove Mr. Gutierrez’s innocence. The prosecution also invoked a legal principle in Texas – the Law of Parties – that makes it possible to hold collaborators in a crime responsible, even if their role wasn’t direct participation in the killing. In Mr. Gutierrez’s case, even if he just helped in the planning, he would still be eligible for the death penalty under this law.
Mr. Gutierrez’s lawyers contended that he neither masterminded the robbery nor participated in it, they also question the Texas legislation that imposes stringent restrictions on when a defendant can access DNA testing after being found guilty. In a separate case, the Supreme Court has chosen to determine whether a federal agency, under Congress’s decree, could give a private entity the authority to store spent nuclear fuel in Texas, a decision that questions the bounds of federal versus state powers.
A unanimous conclusion was reached by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, stating that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wasn’t in a position to issue licenses for off-site storage of nuclear waste temporarily. The Fifth Circuit supported the notion that a federal law clearly indicates the storage of used nuclear fuel is to be strictly on-site – at the reactor, or a designated federal facility, up until a permanent repository is operational.
A request to reconsider the case was denied by the full Fifth Circuit in a split vote. However, a dissenting judge voiced concerns over the serious implications the panel’s decision could have on regulated entities’ investment expectations and the allocation of resources towards lengthy agency proceedings.
The Solicitor General, Elizabeth B. Prelogar, appealed for Supreme Court intervention, noting that appeals courts had previously contradicted the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, siding with federal law which ’empowers the commission to license temporary off-site storage of spent nuclear fuel’. The Solicitor General claimed that the conflicting decision made by the Fifth Circuit challenged the nuclear regulatory commission’s 40-year long authority to regulate nuclear materials safely by issuing such licenses.
Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, countered, arguing that the federal law only allows nuclear waste to be stored at the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada – a prospective site, that has since been stalled. Mr. Paxton contends, ‘Congress has never revised its directive that Yucca Mountain is the appropriate repository for the nation’s nuclear waste.’
Ms. Prelogar further proposed that the logic applied in the Texas ruling could impede other similar practices. She demonstrated this by stating that ‘The Fifth Circuit’s decision casts doubt on the commission’s ability to renew such licenses because those facilities are no longer at the site of a nuclear reactor.’ This assertion comes following the Fifth Circuit’s blocking of a plan intending to store nuclear waste in New Mexico, earlier this year.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court has agreed to assess and provide clarity on when the evaluation of an officer’s use of force should commence. This came about due to a case where a police officer in Texas fatally shot a driver during a traffic stop back in 2016. That officer, Roberto Felix Jr., had a three-judge panel confirm that he had acted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment’s ‘moment of threat’ doctrine, presiding that he had a reasonable fear for his life.
Following the court’s decision, the bench wrote that, under the ‘moment of threat’ doctrine, the queries should revolve around whether an officer ‘was in danger at the moment of the threat’ that led him to use fatal force. The officer’s actions leading up to that moment were deemed inconsequential.
However, one judge, appointed under Reagan’s administration, voiced his grievances regarding the protocol established by the appeals court, while prompting Supreme Court intervention. He was of the opinion that disregarding an officer’s part in precipitating ‘the threat’ which ultimately led to the usage of fatal force weakened the protection extended to the public under the Fourth Amendment. He ominously warned, this practice simultaneously ‘devalues human life’ and ‘frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment.’
He went on to disclose that, given the liberty to examine the complete sequence of the officer’s actions, he would have arrived at the conclusion that the officer had violated the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights. This dispute pertains to the events of April 28, 2016, where a rental car driven by Mr. Barnes, on a highway outside of Houston, was flagged by Officer Felix for unpaid toll violations.
The aggressive move resulted in a lethal shooting when Mr. Barnes attempted to drive away. He was fatally shot by Officer Felix, who managed to shoot into the car from its running board, according to dashboard camera footage. An allegation was made by the deceased’s mother, claiming that the officer’s fatal use of force against her son was unreasonable, and violated his Fourth Amendment rights, thus taking the case to a federal trial court. The court found that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, the officer’s use of force had been objectively reasonable, leading to Ms. Barnes to take her appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.