Reed v. Goertz

PRELIMINARY PRINT

Volume 598 U. S. Part 1
Pages 230–263

OFFICIAL REPORTS
OF

THE SUPREME COURT
April 19, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF
reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before
the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter
of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
230 OCTOBER TERM, 2022

Syllabus

REED v. GOERTZ

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the fth circuit
No. 21–442. Argued October 11, 2022—Decided April 19, 2023
A Texas jury found petitioner Rodney Reed guilty of the 1996 murder of
Stacey Stites. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affrmed Reed's
conviction and death sentence. In 2014, Reed fled a motion in Texas
state court under Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law. Reed re-
quested DNA testing on certain evidence, including the belt used to
strangle Stites, which Reed contended would help identify the true per-
petrator. The state trial court denied Reed's motion, reasoning in part
that items Reed sought to test were not preserved through an adequate
chain of custody. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affrmed, and
later denied Reed's motion for rehearing. Reed then sued in federal
court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, asserting that Texas's post-conviction
DNA testing law failed to provide procedural due process. Reed ar-
gued that the law's stringent chain-of-custody requirement was uncon-
Page Proof Pending Publication
stitutional. The District Court dismissed Reed's complaint. The Fifth
Circuit affrmed on the ground that Reed's § 1983 claim was fled too
late, after the applicable 2-year statute of limitations had run. The
Fifth Circuit held that the limitations period began to run when the
Texas trial court denied Reed's motion, not when the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals denied rehearing.
Held: When a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through
the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a
§ 1983 procedural due process claim begins to run when the state litiga-
tion ends, in this case when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied
Reed's motion for rehearing. Pp. 234–237.
(a) Texas's three threshold arguments lack merit. First, Reed has
standing because Reed suffciently alleged an injury in fact: denial of
access to the requested evidence by the state prosecutor (the named
defendant). A federal court conclusion that Texas's post-conviction
DNA testing procedures denied Reed due process would “amount to a
signifcant increase in the likelihood” that Reed “would obtain relief that
directly redresses the injury suffered.” Utah v. Evans, 536 U. S. 452,
464. Second, Texas's invocation of the State's sovereign immunity fails
because the Ex parte Young doctrine allows suits like Reed's for declar-
atory or injunctive relief against state offcers in their offcial capacities.
209 U. S. 123, 159–161. Third, Reed's procedural due process claim does
not contravene the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Pp. 234–235.
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 231

Syllabus

(b) The sole question before the Court is whether Reed's § 1983 suit
raising a procedural due process challenge to Texas's post-conviction
DNA testing law was timely under the applicable 2-year statute of limi-
tations. The statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff has
a “complete and present cause of action,” Bay Area Laundry and Dry
Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U. S. 192,
201, a determination the Court makes by focusing frst on the specifc
constitutional right alleged to have been infringed. See McDonough v.
Smith, 588 U. S. –––, –––. Here, that right is procedural due process.
A procedural due process claim is complete not “when the deprivation
occurs” but only when “the State fails to provide due process.” Ziner-
mon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113, 126. Texas's process for considering a
request for DNA testing in capital cases includes both trial court pro-
ceedings and appellate review, which under Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 79.1 encompasses a motion for rehearing. In Reed's case,
the State's alleged failure to provide Reed with a fundamentally fair
process was complete when the state litigation ended—when the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reed's motion for rehearing. There-
fore, the statute of limitations began to run on Reed's § 1983 claim when
Reed's motion for rehearing was denied. Pp. 235–237.
995 F. 3d 425, reversed.
Page Proof Pending Publication
Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts,
C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined.
Thomas, J., fled a dissenting opinion, post, p. 237. Alito, J., fled a dis-
senting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined, post, p. 256.

Parker Rider-Longmaid argued the cause for petitioner.
With him on the briefs were Kyser Blakely, Cliff C. Gardner,
Michelle L. Davis, Barry C. Scheck, and Jane Pucher.
Judd E. Stone II, Solicitor General of Texas, argued the
cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ken Pax-
ton, Attorney General of Texas, Brent Webster, First Assist-
ant Attorney General, Ari Cuenin and Bill Davis, Deputy
Solicitors General, Michael R. Abrams and Kyle D. Highful,
Assistant Solicitors General, and Cody Coll, Assistant Attor-
ney General.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the Constitutional
Accountability Center by Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, and
Brian R. Frazelle; for Eight Retired Judges by Jessica L. Ellsworth and
Jo-Ann Tamila Sagar; for Federal Courts Scholars by Meaghan VerGow;
232 REED v. GOERTZ

Opinion of the Court

Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court.
In many States, a convicted prisoner who still disputes
his guilt may ask state courts to order post-conviction DNA
testing of evidence. If the prisoner's request fails in the
state courts and he then fles a federal 42 U. S. C. § 1983 pro-
cedural due process suit challenging the constitutionality of
the state process, when does the statute of limitations for
that § 1983 suit begin to run? The Eleventh Circuit has held
that the statute of limitations begins to run at the end of
the state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including the
state-court appeal. See Van Poyck v. McCollum, 646 F. 3d
865, 867 (2011). In this case, by contrast, the Fifth Circuit
held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the
state trial court denied DNA testing, notwithstanding a sub-
sequent state-court appeal. See 995 F. 3d 425, 431 (2021).
We conclude that the statute of limitations begins to run at
the end of the state-court litigation.
Page Proof Pending
I
Publication
In 1996, Stacey Stites was strangled to death in Bastrop
County, Texas. The State charged Rodney Reed with mur-

for the Law Enforcement Action Partnership et al. by Jim Davy; for the
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., by Janai Nelson, Sam
Spital, and Adam Murphy; for the National Association of Criminal De-
fense Lawyers et al. by Barbara E. Bergman, Clark M. Neily III, Jay R.
Schweikert, John W. Whitehead, Sean M. SeLegue, and David D. Cole; and
for Texas Exonerees et al. by Craig E. Stewart.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the State of
Montana et al. by Austin Knudsen, Attorney General of Montana, David
M. S. Dewhirst, Solicitor General, and Kathleen L. Smithgall, Assistant
Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States
as follows: Steve Marshall of Alabama, Treg Taylor of Alaska, Leslie Rut-
ledge of Arkansas, Lawrence Wasden of Idaho, Jeff Landry of Louisiana,
Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, John M. O'Connor of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson
of South Carolina, and Sean D. Reyes of Utah.
Briefs of amici curiae were fled for Chase Baumgartner by Michael L.
Ware; and for Fred Smith, Jr., by Gregory Dubinsky.
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 233

Opinion of the Court

dering Stites. At trial, Reed claimed that he was innocent
and that Stites's fancé or another acquaintance had com-
mitted the murder. A jury rejected that defense theory
and found Reed guilty. Reed was sentenced to death. The
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affrmed the conviction and
death sentence. Reed's state and federal habeas petitions
were unsuccessful.
Then in 2014, Reed fled a motion in state court under
Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann., Arts. 64.01–64.05 (Vernon 2018). Reed re-
quested DNA testing on more than 40 pieces of evidence,
including the belt used to strangle Stites. Reed contended
that DNA testing would help identify the true perpetrator.
The state prosecutor, respondent Bryan Goertz, agreed to
test several pieces of evidence, but otherwise opposed the
motion and refused to test most of the evidence.
The state trial court denied Reed's motion. The court
Page Proof Pending Publication
reasoned in part that (i) many items Reed sought to test—
including the belt—were not preserved through an adequate
chain of custody and (ii) Reed did not demonstrate that he
would have been acquitted if the DNA results were exculpa-
tory. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals af-
frmed the trial court and later denied Reed's motion for
rehearing.
Reed next sued in federal court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983,
asserting that Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law
failed to provide procedural due process. Among other
things, Reed argued that the law's stringent chain-of-custody
requirement was unconstitutional and in effect foreclosed
DNA testing for individuals convicted before “rules govern-
ing the State's handling and storage of evidence were put in
place.” App. 39.
The U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
dismissed Reed's complaint. The U. S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit affrmed on the ground that Reed's § 1983
suit was fled too late, after the applicable 2-year statute of
234 REED v. GOERTZ

Opinion of the Court

limitations had run. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the stat-
ute of limitations began to run when the Texas trial court
denied Reed's motion (which occurred more than two years
before Reed fled his § 1983 suit in federal court), not when
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied rehearing.
Because the federal Courts of Appeals disagree about
when the statute of limitations begins to run for a § 1983 suit
regarding a State's post-conviction DNA testing procedures,
we granted certiorari. 596 U. S. ––– (2022).

II
Texas raises three threshold arguments.
First, Texas argues that Reed lacks standing. We dis-
agree. Reed suffciently alleged an injury in fact: denial of
access to the requested evidence. The state prosecutor, who
is the named defendant, denied access to the evidence and
thereby caused Reed's injury. And if a federal court con-
Page Proof Pending Publication
cludes that Texas's post-conviction DNA testing procedures
violate due process, that court order would eliminate the
state prosecutor's justifcation for denying DNA testing. It
is “substantially likely” that the state prosecutor would
abide by such a court order. Utah v. Evans, 536 U. S. 452,
464 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other
words, in “terms of our `standing' precedent, the courts
would have ordered a change in a legal status,” and “the
practical consequence of that change would amount to a sig-
nifcant increase in the likelihood” that the state prosecutor
would grant access to the requested evidence and that Reed
therefore “would obtain relief that directly redresses the in-
jury suffered.” Ibid.
Second, Texas invokes the State's sovereign immunity.
But the Ex parte Young doctrine allows suits like Reed's for
declaratory or injunctive relief against state offcers in their
offcial capacities. 209 U. S. 123, 159–161 (1908).
Third, Texas contends that Reed's procedural due process
claim contravenes the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 235

Opinion of the Court

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923); District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462 (1983).
That doctrine prohibits federal courts from adjudicating
cases brought by state-court losing parties challenging state-
court judgments. But as this Court explained in Skinner v.
Switzer, even though a “state-court decision is not review-
able by lower federal courts,” a “statute or rule governing
the decision may be challenged in a federal action.” 562
U. S. 521, 532 (2011). Here, as in Skinner, Reed does “not
challenge the adverse” state-court decisions themselves, but
rather “targets as unconstitutional the Texas statute they
authoritatively construed.” Ibid.

III
This Court's case law “severely limits the federal action
a state prisoner may bring for DNA testing.” Skinner v.
Switzer, 562 U. S. 521, 525 (2011). The Court has “rejected
Page Proof Pending Publication
the extension of substantive due process to this area, and
left slim room for the prisoner to show that the governing
state law denies him procedural due process.” Ibid. (cita-
tion omitted); see District Attorney's Offce for Third Judi-
cial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U. S. 52, 69, 72 (2009).
Seeking to ft his § 1983 suit within the “slim room” left by
this Court's precedent, Reed raised a procedural due process
challenge to Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law. The
sole question now before this Court is whether Reed's § 1983
suit was timely. The parties agree that the statute of limi-
tations for Reed's claim is two years. But the parties dis-
agree about when that 2-year limitations period began to
run. That question is one of federal law. See Wallace v.
Kato, 549 U. S. 384, 388 (2007).
As a general matter, the statute of limitations begins to
run when the plaintiff has a “complete and present cause
of action.” Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension
Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U. S. 192, 201 (1997)
(internal quotation marks omitted). To determine when a
236 REED v. GOERTZ

Opinion of the Court

plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action, the
Court focuses frst on the specifc constitutional right alleged
to have been infringed. See McDonough v. Smith, 588 U. S.
–––, ––– (2019).
Here, the specifc constitutional right allegedly infringed
is procedural due process. A procedural due process claim
consists of two elements: (i) deprivation by state action of a
protected interest in life, liberty, or property, and (ii) inade-
quate state process. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113,
125 (1990). Importantly, the Court has stated that a proce-
dural due process claim “is not complete when the depriva-
tion occurs.” Id., at 126. Rather, the claim is “complete”
only when “the State fails to provide due process.” Ibid.
Reed contends that the State's process for considering his
DNA testing request was fundamentally unfair in violation
of the Due Process Clause. Texas's process for considering
a request for DNA testing in capital cases includes not only
Page Proof Pending Publication
trial court proceedings, but also appellate review by the
Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.,
Art. 64.05. And under longstanding Texas rules of appellate
procedure, the Court of Criminal Appeals's appellate review
process encompasses a motion for rehearing. Tex. Rule
App. Proc. 79.1 (2022).
In Reed's case, the State's alleged failure to provide Reed
with a fundamentally fair process was complete when the
state litigation ended and deprived Reed of his asserted
liberty interest in DNA testing. Therefore, Reed's § 1983
claim was complete and the statute of limitations began to
run when the state litigation ended—when the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals denied Reed's motion for rehearing.
The soundness of that straightforward conclusion is “rein-
forced by the consequences that would follow” from a con-
trary approach. McDonough, 588 U. S., at –––. If the stat-
ute of limitations for a § 1983 suit like Reed's began to run
after a state trial court's denial of a plaintiff 's motion for
DNA testing (or even after the appeal before the plaintiff's
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 237

Thomas, J., dissenting

rehearing proceedings), the plaintiff would likely continue to
pursue relief in the state system and simultaneously fle a
protective federal § 1983 suit challenging that ongoing state
process. That parallel litigation would “run counter to core
principles of federalism, comity, consistency, and judicial
economy.” Id., at –––. We see no good reason for such
senseless duplication.
Moreover, signifcant systemic benefts ensue from start-
ing the statute of limitations clock when the state litigation
in DNA testing cases like Reed's has concluded. If any due
process faws lurk in the DNA testing law, the state appellate
process may cure those faws, thereby rendering a federal
§ 1983 suit unnecessary. And if the state appellate court
construes the DNA testing statute, that construction will
streamline and focus subsequent § 1983 proceedings.
In sum, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction
DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process,
the statute of limitations for a § 1983 procedural due proc-
Page Proof Pending Publication
ess claim begins to run when the state litigation ends.
In Reed's case, the statute of limitations began to run when
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reed's motion
for rehearing. Reed's § 1983 claim was timely.1
We reverse the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) affrmed the
denial of petitioner Rodney Reed's state-law motion for post-
1
According to Reed, a plaintiff may forgo full appellate review in the
state-court system and still bring a procedural due process suit challeng-
ing a State's post-conviction DNA testing law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 9–14.
As this Court indicated in District Attorney's Offce for Third Judicial
Dist. v. Osborne, it may be “diffcult” as a practical matter “to criticize the
State's procedures when [the prisoner] has not invoked them.” 557 U. S.
52, 71 (2009). In any event, we need not address that hypothetical
scenario.
238 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

conviction DNA testing. Reed petitioned this Court for cer-
tiorari, arguing that the CCA's interpretation and applica-
tion of the relevant state law violated his federal due process
rights. After we denied his petition, Reed repackaged it as
a complaint in Federal District Court, naming respondent
(the Bastrop County District Attorney) as a placeholder de-
fendant. Like his earlier certiorari petition, Reed's com-
plaint assails the CCA's state-law reasoning as inconsis-
tent with due process, and it seeks a declaration that the
CCA's interpretation and application of state law was
unconstitutional.
Reed's action should be dismissed for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. Federal district courts lack appellate
jurisdiction to review state-court judgments, and Reed's
action presents no original Article III case or controversy
between him and the district attorney. Because the Court
erroneously holds that the District Court had jurisdiction
over Reed's action, I respectfully dissent.
Page Proof Pending Publication
I
A
On April 23, 1996, 19-year-old Stacey Stites failed to re-
port for her 3:30 a.m. shift at the H.E.B. grocery store in
Bastrop, Texas. The truck Stites drove to work was found
abandoned in the Bastrop High School parking lot a couple
of hours later. That afternoon, a passerby discovered Stites'
body in a ditch by a country road, her clothing disturbed
in a manner suggesting sexual violence. Medical examiners
determined that Stites had been strangled to death with her
own belt, which was found in two pieces—one near the truck,
the other near Stites' body. There was semen in Stites' va-
gina and rectum and saliva on her breasts. The police con-
cluded that Stites had been raped and murdered.
Despite a wide-ranging investigation, the police were ini-
tially unable to fnd a DNA match for the bodily fuids recov-
ered from Stites' corpse. Then, about six months after
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 239

Thomas, J., dissenting

Stites' death, Reed was arrested for kidnaping and attempt-
ing to rape and murder another young woman near the route
Stites typically took to work and around the same time of
night when Stites had gone missing. Reed lived near the
high school and was often seen walking the surrounding area
at night. Intrigued, the police checked Reed's DNA profle,
which Texas had on fle from an earlier sexual-assault case
against him. A series of tests established a conclusive, one-
in-the-world-population match between Reed and the fuids
recovered from Stites' corpse.
When frst questioned, Reed insisted that he did not know
Stites at all, unaware that the police had DNA evidence dis-
proving that claim. By the time of his trial, he had changed
his story: He and Stites were having a consensual affair, and
someone else—perhaps her jealous fancé—had committed
the murder. The jury rejected that post hoc narrative and
found Reed guilty. In the separate penalty phase, Reed's
kidnaping victim testifed about how Reed had abducted,
Page Proof Pending Publication
threatened, and attempted to rape her before she was fortu-
itously able to escape. Four other women—and one under-
age girl—also testifed that Reed had brutally beaten and
raped them in the past. Reed was sentenced to death.
The CCA affrmed Reed's conviction and sentence in 2000.
In the 23 years since, he has kept up a constant stream of
postconviction flings asserting his innocence. Every few
years, Reed's lawyers have produced a new theory and a new
purportedly exculpatory affdavit. With the patience of Job,
the Texas courts have duly considered them all. On one
such occasion, the CCA noted “the complete lack of a cohe-
sive theory of innocence” across Reed's unending series of
attempts to relitigate his guilt. Ex parte Reed, 271 S. W. 3d
698, 746 (2008).1
1
One example encapsulates the meritlessness of those attempts. In one
of his many state postconviction proceedings, Reed submitted an affdavit
from his own father, Walter, stating that an acquaintance had told him
that he knew where Stites was the night she died. Reed submitted no
240 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

B
In Texas, a convict has two distinct avenues to obtain post-
conviction DNA testing of evidence—one executive and dis-
cretionary, the other judicial and legal. As for the frst, the
convict can attempt to reach an agreement with the district
attorney, who has broad discretion to order or allow DNA
testing. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 39–40. In the case of the sec-
ond, the convict can fle a motion under Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann., Arts. 64.01 through 64.05 (Vernon 2018) (Chapter
64), which requires “the convicting court” to “order testing”
if the movant establishes certain requirements. Ex parte
Gutierrez, 337 S. W. 3d 883, 889–890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
In 2014, on the same day that the trial court held a hearing
to set Reed's execution date, Reed fled a Chapter 64 motion
for DNA testing of a large number of items. The district
attorney consented to test some of the items outside of the
Chapter 64 framework, but he otherwise opposed Reed's re-
Page Proof Pending Publication
quest. The trial court denied the motion, fnding that Reed
had not established two necessary elements for Chapter 64
testing: (1) that he “would not have been convicted if excul-
patory results had been obtained through DNA testing,”
Art. 64.03(a)(2)(A); and (2) that his Chapter 64 motion was
“not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence
or administration of justice,” Art. 64.03(a)(2)(B). Reed ap-
pealed, and the CCA remanded for the trial court to address
the other elements of the Chapter 64 rubric. After making
supplemental fndings, the trial court again denied Reed's
motion, and Reed again appealed.
In April 2017, the CCA issued an opinion affrming the
trial court. First, the CCA held that the record supported
the trial court's fnding that many of the items had not “been

affdavit from the acquaintance. The State then obtained an affdavit
from the acquaintance, in which he swore that he “ `never told Walter Reed
that I knew where Stacey Stites was on the night she was killed. All I
ever told Walter was that Rodney Reed was a crackhead who raped girls
on the [railroad] tracks. I have no idea where Stacey Stites was when
she died.' ” 271 S. W. 3d, at 736.
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 241

Thomas, J., dissenting

subjected to a chain of custody suffcient to establish that
[they had] not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or
altered in any material respect.” Art. 64.03(a)(1)(A)(ii); see
Reed v. State, 541 S. W. 3d 759, 769–770. Second, it held
that Reed had not shown “a reasonable likelihood” that many
of the items “contain[ed] biological material suitable for
DNA testing.” Art. 64.03(a)(1)(B); see 541 S. W. 3d, at 772.
Third, addressing only the items that survived the previous
two holdings, the CCA held that Reed had not established
that exculpatory results from DNA testing of those items
would have prevented his conviction. See id., at 773–777.
Finally, the CCA held that Reed had failed to establish that
his Chapter 64 motion was not made for purposes of delay.
See id., at 777–780. The CCA noted that “Chapter 64 had
existed with only slight variations for over thirteen years at
the time Reed fled his motion,” and that Reed's motion was
suspiciously fled “on the same day the judge heard the
State's motion to set an execution date.” Id., at 779.
Page Proof Pending Publication
Reed moved for rehearing, arguing that the CCA had mis-
applied the Chapter 64 elements and asserting, in broad
terms, that those errors violated his due process rights.
See App. to Pet. for Cert. in Reed v. Texas, O. T. 2017, No.
17–1093, pp. 263a–272a. The CCA denied rehearing by sum-
mary order in October 2017.
Reed then timely petitioned this Court for a writ of certio-
rari to review the CCA's judgment. His petition contended
that the CCA's judgment “violate[d his] due process rights”
because it was based on “arbitrary and fundamentally un-
fair interpretation[s]” of Chapter 64's chain-of-custody and
unreasonable-delay elements. Pet. for Cert. in No. 17–1093,
pp. i–ii. We denied certiorari. See Reed v. Texas, 585
U. S. ––– (2018).
C
In August 2019, Reed sued the district attorney under
Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the U. S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas. As relevant here,
Reed's complaint alleges that he successfully “proved each
242 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

of the statutory requirements of [Chapter] 64” in the state-
court proceedings, App. 31, ¶52, but that “the CCA's adop-
tion of non-statutory criteria to preclude . . . Reed from test-
ing key trial evidence to prove his innocence violate[d] fun-
damental notions of fairness and denie[d] him due process of
law,” id., at 14, ¶2. Reed proceeds to allege “several ways”
in which “[t]he CCA's interpretation and application of
[Chapter] 64 violate[d] fundamental fairness,” id., at 41, ¶79,
with particular focus on the CCA's allegedly arbitrary con-
structions of the chain-of-custody, unreasonable-delay, and
exculpatory-results elements, see id., at 41–42, ¶¶79–81; 43–
45, ¶¶84–87. For relief, “Reed seeks a declaration that
[Chapter] 64, as interpreted, construed and applied by the
Texas courts to deny his motion for DNA testing, violates
his rights under” the Constitution. Id., at 14, ¶3; see also
id., at 49 (prayer for relief ).
The district attorney moved to dismiss Reed's complaint
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state
Page Proof Pending Publication
a claim. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). The
District Court held that it had jurisdiction but dismissed
Reed's complaint on the merits, concluding that Reed had
alleged only “that he disagree[d] with the state court's con-
struction of Texas law” and that none of the issues in the
complaint “r[ose] to the level of a procedural due-process vio-
lation.” 2019 WL 12073901, *7 (WD Tex., Nov. 15, 2019).
The Fifth Circuit affrmed on the alternative ground that
Reed's claim was untimely: Applying Texas' 2-year statute
of limitations for personal-injury claims, it reasoned that
Reed's due process claim accrued when the trial court frst
denied his Chapter 64 motion, rendering his complaint sev-
eral years too late. 995 F. 3d 425, 431 (2021).
II
Two intertwined principles of federal jurisdiction—Article
III standing and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine2 —mandate a
2
See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923).
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 243

Thomas, J., dissenting

fnding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this
action. The majority gives short shrift to these principles,
and its holding that Reed's claim was timely serves only to
underscore its antecedent jurisdictional errors.

A
The Constitution limits the federal courts' jurisdiction to
“Cases” and “Controversies,” Art. III, § 2, cl. 1, constraining
judicial power to “the determination of real, earnest and
vital controvers[ies] between” contending litigants. Chi-
cago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345
(1892). “[A]n essential and unchanging part of [this] case-
or-controversy requirement” is the doctrine of Article III
standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560
(1992). Under that doctrine, any party requesting relief
from a federal court must assert “an injury” that is “con-
crete, particularized, and actual or imminent,” and he must
Page Proof Pending Publication
show that his injury is both “fairly traceable to the chal-
lenged action” and “redressable by a favorable ruling.”
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U. S. 139, 149
(2010); see also Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581
U. S. 433, 438–439 (2017). Absent that showing, the court
has no jurisdiction and thus no “power to adjudicate the
case.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523
U. S. 83, 89 (1998) (emphasis deleted).
Jurisdiction, moreover, comes in two types—original and
appellate—and the application of the Article III standing el-
ements is interwoven with that constitutionally grounded
distinction. See Art. III, § 2, cl. 2. In an original case or
controversy, the plaintiff traces his injury “to the defendant's
allegedly unlawful conduct,” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737,
751 (1984), and, correspondingly, seeks a remedy that runs
against the defendant and determines that defendant's duties
or liabilities (e. g., a judgment for money damages or an in-
junction). On the other hand, “[t]he criterion which distin-
guishes appellate from original jurisdiction, is that it revises
and corrects the decisions of another tribunal.” Ex parte
244 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 86 (1807); see also Marbury v. Madi-
son, 1 Cranch 137, 175–176 (1803). As such, a case or contro-
versy is appellate in nature when the relief-seeking party's
injury is traceable to the allegedly erroneous action of an-
other court and requires a remedy correcting that judicial
action (e. g., reversal or vacatur of the challenged judgment).3
See, e. g., Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media,
588 U. S. –––, ––– – ––– (2019); Monsanto, 561 U. S., at 150–
153. Thus, whenever a party seeks relief from a federal
court, the elements that bring his claim within Article III in
the frst place—the nature and source of his injury and the
remedy needed to redress it—also dictate whether his claim
invokes original or appellate jurisdiction.
The conceptual distinction between original and appellate
jurisdiction also animates the Rooker-Feldman doctrine—
which, despite its name, is not so much a “doctrine” as a basic
fact of federal statutory law. This Court has discretionary
appellate jurisdiction to review certain state-court judg-
Page Proof Pending Publication
ments by certiorari. 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a). But no other
federal court has appellate jurisdiction over state-court judg-

3
The limited exceptions to these generalizations only prove the rules.
Appellate courts sometimes issue remedies that operate directly on the
parties (e. g., injunctions pending appeal), but such remedies are “extra-
ordinary” and appropriate only when “ `in aid of ' ” the court's primary ap-
pellate jurisdiction. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election
Comm'n, 542 U. S. 1305, 1305–1306 (2004) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers)
(quoting 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a) (2000 ed.)). And, while certain original reme-
dies, like declaratory judgments and quiet title decrees, do not necessarily
impose new duties on the losing defendant, they conclusively establish the
parties' legal relations from which such duties fow. See Nashville, C. &
St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 261–265 (1933). Signifcantly, this
Court has long held that an action for declaratory relief alone implicates
the same constitutional “case or controversy” as would an action for coer-
cive relief involving the same parties and subject matter, see ibid., and
that declaratory relief “cannot alone supply jurisdiction otherwise absent,”
California v. Texas, 593 U. S. –––, ––– (2021); see also R. Fallon, J. Man-
ning, D. Meltzer, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts
and the Federal System 841 (7th ed. 2015).
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 245

Thomas, J., dissenting

ments, and, in particular, “[t]he jurisdiction possessed by the
District Courts is strictly original.” Rooker v. Fidelity
Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413, 416 (1923); see, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1331
(“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all
civil actions arising under [federal law]”). Thus, if the los-
ing party in a state judicial proceeding “claim[s] that the
state judgment itself violates [his] federal rights”—a claim
that calls for an exercise of appellate jurisdiction—his only
remedy in the federal system is certiorari in this Court.
Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997, 1006 (1994). He may
not “see[k] what in substance would be appellate review of
the state judgment” under the guise of an original action in
federal district court. Id., at 1005–1006; see also Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U. S. 280,
284–285 (2005); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U. S. 462, 482–488, and nn. 15, 16 (1983).
Yet, that is precisely what Reed has done here. While his
Page Proof Pending Publication
complaint purports to bring an original action against the
district attorney, in reality, it seeks appellate review to re-
dress an alleged injury inficted by the CCA's adverse de-
cision “in [his] particular cas[e].” Id., at 487, n. 18. The
gravamen of Reed's claim—made clear again and again
throughout his complaint—is that the CCA violated his due
process rights through its reasoning in his case. See, e. g.,
App. 14, ¶2; 31–33, ¶¶53–57; 38, ¶69; 39–40, ¶¶71, 74; 41,
¶79; 42–43, ¶¶83–84; 44–45, ¶¶86–87. All of those alleged
injuries are traceable to the CCA, not the district attorney.
And, redressing them would require an exercise of appellate
jurisdiction over the CCA—jurisdiction that the District
Court does not have. Confrming the point, Reed's com-
plaint does not ask the District Court to control the district
attorney's actions at all. Instead, the only relief it requests
is “[a] declaration that the CCA's interpretation and applica-
tion of [Chapter] 64 . . . is unconstitutional.” Id., at 49. The
complaint transparently seeks nothing more than the Dis-
trict Court's “review and rejection” of the CCA's judgment.
246 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

Exxon Mobil, 544 U. S., at 284. As such, it founders upon
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as well as the Article III
traceability and redressability requirements with which that
doctrine is intertwined.
Any doubt that Reed seeks de facto appellate review
should be dispelled by one undisputed fact: Every due proc-
ess violation that Reed alleges could have been considered
on direct review of the CCA's judgment in this Court.
After all, determining whether state-court judgments ap-
plied unconstitutional constructions of state law is a classic
use of this Court's appellate jurisdiction under § 1257(a).
See, e. g., Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 453 (2001);
Boui e v. Ci ty of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 349 (1964);
Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Sav. Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 678
(1930). That is why Reed originally petitioned this Court
for certiorari to review the CCA's judgment. And it is why
he agreed at oral argument that we could have granted that
Page Proof Pending Publication
petition. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 32–33.
Yet, even after repackaging his failed certiorari petition
as an original § 1983 complaint, Reed not only concedes but
affrmatively argues that his claim is analogous to the due
process arguments presented in Rogers, Boui e, and
Brinkerhoff-Faris. See Brief for Petitioner 33–34. That
he is correct on that front should be fatal to his complaint.
Like the petitioners in those cases, Reed contends that the
rules of decision applied against him in a state-court pro-
ceeding violated his due process rights. Because those con-
tentions would have been appropriate subjects for this
Court's appellate review, it follows that Reed cannot press
the same due process challenges and seek the same relief in
an original action in the District Court. See Feldman, 460
U. S., at 482–486, and n. 15; accord, id., at 489 (Stevens, J.,
dissenting).
In holding otherwise, the majority improperly separates
the Rooker-Feldman and Article III inquiries and applies a
different theory of Reed's claim to each. But, Reed's claim
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 247

Thomas, J., dissenting

must satisfy two conditions at once: It must implicate an Ar-
ticle III case or controversy between the parties to this ac-
tion, and that case or controversy must fall within the Dis-
trict Court's “strictly original” jurisdiction. Rooker, 263
U. S., at 416. The majority articulates no theory of how
Reed's claim can satisfy both conditions. That is because
there is no such theory.
A useful way to view this is to work backwards from the
majority's Rooker-Feldman holding. The majority accepts
Reed's representation that he “does `not challenge the ad-
verse' state-court decisions themselves,” but only “ `targets
as unconstitutional the Texas statute [Chapter 64] they au-
thoritatively construed.' ” Ante, at 235 (quoting Skinner v.
Switzer, 562 U. S. 521, 532 (2011)). But this workaround to
Rooker-Feldman raises a glaring Article III problem: As
this Court has repeatedly explained, a federal court may not
entertain a free-foating challenge to a statute unmoored
from a concrete case or controversy. See, e. g., California v.
Page Proof Pending Publication
Texas, 593 U. S. –––, ––– – ––– (2021); Valley Forge Christian
College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 471–472 (1982); Massachusetts v.
Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923); Muskrat v. United States,
219 U. S. 346, 360–362 (1911). Unless Reed merely seeks an
advisory opinion, his due process challenge to Chapter 64
must seek relief from some concrete enforcement or applica-
tion of that law that affects him. More specifcally, Reed
must be challenging either (1) some conduct of the district
attorney constituting enforcement of Chapter 64 against him
or (2) the CCA's application of Chapter 64 as a rule of de-
cision in his case.4 If it is the former, Reed's suit is origi-

4
I acknowledge that our most recent DNA-testing precedent, Skinner
v. Switzer, 562 U. S. 521 (2011), contains loose language suggesting that
Skinner's due process claim challenged neither “the [defendant] prosecu-
tor's conduct [n]or the decisions reached by the CCA” in his case, but only
“Texas' postconviction DNA statute `as construed' by the Texas courts.”
Id., at 530. But, the majority surely cannot think that federal courts have
248 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

nal; if it is the latter, it requires an exercise of appellate
jurisdiction.
So, which is it? As already indicated, the correct answer
is the latter: Fundamentally, Reed's complaint—like his cer-
tiorari petition before it—contests how “the Texas courts”
“interpreted, construed[,] and applied” Chapter 64 “to deny
his motion for DNA testing,” App. 14, ¶3, which is why the
only relief he requests is an abstract “declaration that the
CCA's interpretation and application of [Chapter] 64 . . . is
unconstitutional.” Id., at 49. The idea that his claim “does
not challenge the adverse state-court decisions,” ante, at 235
(internal quotation marks omitted), cannot survive even a
cursory examination of his complaint. See supra, at 245.
Nor would the other possibility make any sense. Reed
cannot be seeking relief from the district attorney's enforce-
ment of Chapter 64, because the district attorney has not
enforced that law against Reed at all. The sum total of the
Page Proof Pending Publication
district attorney's relevant conduct is as follows. First, he
declined to order Reed's desired testing in his executive dis-
cretion, independent of Chapter 64. Next, when Reed asked
the Texas courts to grant testing under Chapter 64, the dis-
trict attorney opposed his motion. Finally, after Reed's mo-
tion proved unsuccessful, the district attorney continued to

subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to statutes in the abstract, nor
does Skinner actually stand for that proposition. Skinner's only jurisdic-
tional holding was that the petitioner's claim was not barred by Rooker-
Feldman. See 562 U. S., at 532–533. Skinner did not address Article III
standing and thus has “ `no precedential effect' ” on that issue. Arbaugh
v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 511 (2006). Yet, for the curious, Skinner's
complaint did in fact allege that the defendant prosecutor was violating
his due process rights through her conduct, and it expressly requested
injunctive relief against her. See App. in Skinner v. Switzer, O. T. 2010,
No. 09–9000, pp. 5–6, ¶¶1–2; 20–21, ¶33; 22, ¶37. Thus, Skinner's claim
as pleaded clearly was original in nature, but for precisely the same rea-
sons that Reed's is not: Where Skinner claimed injury from and sought
relief against the party whom he had sued, Reed claims injury from and
seeks relief against an adverse judicial decision.
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 249

Thomas, J., dissenting

decline to order Reed's desired testing. To say that this
conduct amounts to enforcing Chapter 64 makes as much
sense as saying that a party to a discovery dispute, who de-
feats a motion to compel, in effect, “enforces” the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure by continuing not to turn over the
demanded documents. Again, any due process injury that
Chapter 64 has caused Reed is traceable to the CCA's judicial
application of that law in his case, not to any executive acts
or omissions of the district attorney.
The majority permits Reed to evade that problem by fram-
ing his Article III injury as the mere lack of access to his
desired evidence, independent of any alleged due process de-
nial. See ante, at 234. But, if framing Reed's injury that
way helps with traceability, it only worsens his redressabil-
ity problem. Suppose that the District Court accepted
Reed's due process arguments and issued his requested re-
lief: an abstract declaration that the interpretation of Chap-
Page Proof Pending Publication
ter 64 that the CCA applied in his case is unconstitutional.
How, exactly, would that redress Reed's injury of not having
the evidence tested? The CCA's Chapter 64 judgment
would remain untouched; Reed would have obtained an opin-
ion disapproving its reasoning, but without any appellate
“revis[ion] and correct[ion]” to disturb its fnality. Bollman,
4 Cranch, at 86. Nor would a declaration that the CCA's
construction of Chapter 64 was unconstitutional imply any-
thing about the district attorney's duties or liabilities.
The majority asserts that such a declaration would cause
“ `a signifcant increase in the likelihood' ” that the district
attorney would grant Reed's desired testing. Ante, at 234
(quoting Utah v. Evans, 536 U. S. 452, 464 (2002)). But the
district attorney has made clear that he does not understand
Reed's requested relief to “require any change in conduct”
from him and that it is not “likely to bring about such
change.” Brief for Respondent 38–39. If the majority
thinks the district attorney is wrong about that, it would
only be fair to explain exactly what change in conduct would
250 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

be legally required of him if Reed prevailed on his due proc-
ess claim. The majority fails to do so.5
Instead, it offers a number of vague pronouncements, all of
which wilt under scrutiny. Consider the claim that Reed's
victory in this action would “eliminate the [district attor-
ney's] justifcation for denying DNA testing.” Ante, at 234.
If this means that Reed's requested relief would entitle him
to testing under Chapter 64, it is wrong because the CCA's
unreversed judgment would stand as a fnal, binding deter-
mination of Reed's Chapter 64 rights even if the District
Court were to declare that, in its opinion, the CCA had ap-
plied that law unconstitutionally in Reed's case. Alterna-
tively, if the majority means that the success of Reed's due
process claim would require the district attorney to permit
testing in his independent executive discretion, it is also
wrong because Reed is not challenging the district attorney's
denial of discretionary testing as unlawful—only the CCA's
Page Proof Pending Publication
“interpretation and application of [Chapter] 64.” App. 49.
The majority also misses the mark when it asserts that it
is “substantially likely that the [district attorney] would
abide by [Reed's requested] court order.” Ante, at 234 (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted). Again, the only “court
order” Reed seeks is a declaration disapproving the legal un-
derpinnings of the CCA's judgment. Such an “order” would
have no bearing on the district attorney's future conduct; in a
literal sense, there would be nothing for him to “abide by.”
Finally, the majority says that the District Court “ `would
have ordered a change in a legal status' ” were it to grant

5
This failure will have troubling consequences if Reed's claim ever prog-
resses beyond the pleading stage. To survive summary judgment, Reed
cannot “rest on mere allegations, but must set forth by affdavit or other
evidence specifc facts” showing that his requested relief will make it like-
lier that he obtains the desired testing. Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA,
568 U. S. 398, 412 (2013) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
It is far from clear what such a showing would entail, and the majority
leaves the parties in the dark.
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 251

Thomas, J., dissenting

the declaration Reed seeks. Ibid. (quoting Utah, 536 U. S.,
at 464). The intended meaning of this statement is com-
pletely obscure. The “status” that the majority has in mind
cannot be that of Chapter 64 itself. See California, 593
U. S., at ––– (explaining that judicial remedies “ `operate with
respect to specifc parties,' ” not “ `on legal rules in the ab-
stract' ”); see also Mellon, 262 U. S., at 488 (explaining that
courts “have no power per se to review and annul [statutes]
on the ground that they are unconstitutional,” only “the neg-
ative power to disregard an unconstitutional enactment”
when “declaring the law applicable to [a justiciable] contro-
versy”). Nor can the majority mean that the District Court
could change the “status” of the CCA's judgment. In real-
ity, the only way that the District Court could possibly help
Reed obtain DNA testing is by directly controlling the dis-
trict attorney's actions. But, again, Reed's complaint nei-
ther requests nor sets forth a basis for any such relief.6

Page
6
This case Proof Pending
is thus very different from Utah Publication
v. Evans, 536 U. S. 452
(2002), on which the majority relies heavily (indeed, exclusively). There,
as earlier in Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U. S. 788 (1992), we held that
a State had standing to sue the Secretary of Commerce for injunctive and
declaratory relief against an allegedly improper census report that would
have diminished the State's congressional delegation. See Utah, 536
U. S., at 459–464; Franklin, 505 U. S., at 801–803 (plurality opinion). In
both cases, Justice Scalia argued in dissent that redressability was lacking
because the causal link between the Secretary's preparation of a new re-
port and redress of the States' apportionment injuries depended on the
actions of other offcials not bound by the court's judgment. See Utah,
536 U. S., at 511; Franklin, 505 U. S., at 824–825. The Court answered
that objection by “assum[ing]”—in large part because “the Solicitor Gen-
eral ha[d] not contended to the contrary”—that it was “substantially
likely” that those other offcials would cooperate with a judgment in the
suing State's favor. Id., at 803 (plurality opinion); see Utah, 536 U. S., at
460–461, 463–464. Utah and Franklin thus represent nothing more than
a context-specifc application of the settled rule that “standing is not pre-
cluded” (although it is “more diffcult to establish”) when the connection
between the defendant's court-ordered remedial conduct and ultimate re-
dress of the plaintiff 's injury partly depends on the actions of third par-
ties. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 562 (1992) (internal
252 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

In sum, there is no getting around the essential problem
with Reed's due process claim: To the extent he is not merely
seeking an advisory opinion, he is complaining about a court-
inficted injury, and redressing that injury would require an
exercise of appellate jurisdiction that the District Court does
not possess. In substance, his complaint in this action is a
mere reprise of his prior certiorari petition, camoufaged as
an original action against the district attorney. Thus, I
would vacate the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remand this
case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

B
The majority next holds that Reed's § 1983 due process
claim was timely because it did not accrue until the CCA
denied rehearing. The little reasoning the majority offers
for this conclusion helpfully accentuates its antecedent juris-
Page Proof Pending Publication
dictional errors.
First, the majority points out that a procedural due proc-
ess claim is not necessarily “ `complete when the deprivation
occurs,' ” but “only when `the State fails to provide due proc-
ess.' ” Ante, at 236 (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S.
113, 126 (1990)). Yet, “the general rule” is that due process
itself “requir[es] predeprivation notice and hearing,” so the
truism for which the majority quotes Zinermon matters only
in those “extraordinary situations” in which “[w]e toler-
ate” postdeprivation process as suffcient. United States v.
James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U. S. 43, 53 (1993)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see Zinermon, 494 U. S.,
at 127–130. The majority proceeds to show, however, that
it does not regard this case as a postdeprivation case at all,

quotation marks omitted). Here, by contrast, the majority fnds redress-
ability in an abstract declaration—in truth, an advisory opinion—that
would not require any change in conduct on the part of the only defendant
in this case. Nothing in our precedents supports that holding.
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 253

Thomas, J., dissenting

for it says that the State “deprived Reed of his asserted
liberty interest in DNA testing” at the very moment when
“the State's alleged failure to provide Reed with a fundamen-
tally fair process was complete.” Ante, at 236. Given this
understanding of Reed's claim, the “[i]mportan[t]” proposi-
tion with which the majority begins its analysis is doctrinally
irrelevant. Ibid.
After that red herring, the majority engages in an obvious
equivocation, confating the Chapter 64 “process” that Reed
challenges as “fundamentally unfair” with the Texas courts'
generally applicable decisional procedures. Ibid. But of
course, those procedures are not what Reed challenges. In-
stead (and, again, exactly like the arguments in his prior
certiorari petition), his due process claim “ `targets as uncon-
stitutional' ” the substantive requirements of Chapter 64 as
construed. Ante, at 235. His claim plainly would be no dif-
ferent if the CCA did not entertain rehearing motions.
Page Proof Pending Publication
Still, the majority's confused accrual reasoning is useful
for the added light that it shines on Reed's jurisdictional
problems. As the majority says, a procedural due process
claim has two elements: (1) a deprivation and (2) inadequate
process. The majority then acknowledges that the state
courts effectuated Reed's deprivation, and it treats the state
courts' ordinary decisional mechanics as the allegedly inade-
quate process. But, after both elements of Reed's claim are
thus laid at the feet of the state courts, what role is left
for the nominal defendant here, the district attorney? What
part did he play in violating Reed's procedural due process
rights, and what makes him a proper defendant to Reed's
§ 1983 claim?
The majority has no answer. At bottom, its approval of
Reed's claim is intelligible only upon the supposition that the
district attorney may be sued as a mere stand-in for the
State as a whole, such that Reed can urge against him the
due process violations that the State allegedly committed
through its courts. That is a profound mistake. True, the
254 REED v. GOERTZ

Thomas, J., dissenting

district attorney and the CCA are both state actors. But,
States act in different ways through their different entities
and offcers, and the nature of a challenged state action de-
termines what federal-court remedy may be available.
As this Court has explained, “[a] State acts by its legisla-
tive, its executive, or its judicial authorities,” and “in no
other way.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347 (1880).
The Due Process Clause applies to action through any of
these agencies, ibid., but not every alleged due process viola-
tion may be asserted in an original § 1983 action. By itself,
a State's legislative enactment of an unconstitutional law
does not give rise to a justiciable case or controversy. See
California, 593 U. S., at ––– – –––; Muskrat, 219 U. S., at 361.
Next, when a State allegedly violates due process through
executive action, the aggrieved party may bring an original
action for appropriate relief against the relevant executive
offcer. See Mellon, 262 U. S., at 488; Ex parte Young, 209
U. S. 123 (1908).7 And, when a State allegedly violates due
Page Proof Pending Publication
7
Young cautioned that,
“[i]n making an offcer of the State a party defendant in a suit to enjoin
the enforcement of an act alleged to be unconstitutional[,] it is plain that
such offcer must have some connection with the enforcement of the act,
or else it is merely making him a party as a representative of the State,
and thereby attempting to make the State a party.” 209 U. S., at 157
(emphasis added).
Invoking this language, the district attorney argues that Reed's suit is
independently barred by state sovereign immunity, in addition to Article
III and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It appears fairly debatable
whether the “connection” requirement described in Young is best under-
stood as a precondition to Young's sovereign-immunity exception or as a
simple application of Article III traceability. Compare Okpalobi v. Fos-
ter, 244 F. 3d 405, 410–424 (CA5 2001) (en banc) (plurality opinion) (taking
the former view), with id., at 439 (Benavides, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part) (arguing that “modern standing doctrine has subsumed
the connection inquiry”). I see no need to tackle that question here, since
Article III and Rooker-Feldman amply establish the jurisdictional impro-
priety of Reed's suit. I add only that, on either interpretation, Young
makes it clear that a state offcer cannot be sued “as a representative of
the State” writ large—rather, he can only be sued for legal violations
attributable to his own offce.
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 255

Thomas, J., dissenting

process through its judicial actions—be it through the denial
of a fundamentally fair judicial procedure or through the ap-
plication of a rule of decision that itself violates due proc-
ess—the remedy that Congress has provided is appellate
“review of the [challenged] judgmen[t] in this Court.” Feld-
man, 460 U. S., at 482; see, e. g., Rogers, 532 U. S., at 453;
Bouie, 378 U. S., at 349; Brinkerhoff-Faris, 281 U. S., at 678;
cf. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of
Environmental Protection, 560 U. S. 702 (2010) (reviewing
judicial-taking claim on certiorari to the challenged state-
court judgment). But, if that remedy proves unsuccessful—
as it did for Reed—the aggrieved party cannot simply substi-
tute an executive offcer as a defendant, charge the state
court's errors to that offcer, and seek redress for a court-
inficted injury in a purported original action.
Properly understood, therefore, Article III, the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, and procedural due process principles
work in harmony. The majority's piecemeal analysis re-
Page Proof Pending Publication
places this natural coherence with chaos. It dilutes Arti-
cle III's traceability and redressability requirements to the
point of irrelevance. It creates a system in which the same
state-court actions simultaneously give rise to identical orig-
inal and appellate claims for relief. See this Court's Rule
13.3 (“[T]he time to fle [a] petition for a writ of certiorari
. . . runs from the date of the denial of rehearing” by the
lower court). It allows Reed to convert his failed certiorari
petition into a § 1983 complaint. And, in doing so, it author-
izes a proceeding in which the District Court can do nothing
except opine on the constitutional merits of a state-court
adjudication.
* * *
If there is a mitigating factor to today's decision, it is that
the § 1983 action that the Court misguidedly allows to pro-
ceed is no barrier to the prompt execution of Reed's lawful
sentence. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 573, 583–584
(2006). Indeed, Reed conceded at oral argument “that you
do not get a stay of execution just because you brought [a
256 REED v. GOERTZ

Alito, J., dissenting

Chapter] 64 proceeding or just because you're in [§ ]1983 pro-
ceedings . . . challenging the adequacy of the procedures
available to you from the state.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 68. Texas
is free to take him at his word. But, because the majority
undermines vital principles of federal jurisdiction and desta-
bilizes the orderly working of our judicial system, I respect-
fully dissent.

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins,
dissenting.
This case involves a suit brought by petitioner Rodney
Reed under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against
Bryan Goertz, the District Attorney of Bastrop County,
Texas. Reed claims that Goertz violated his due process
rights when, based on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals'
interpretation of the Texas statute that allows post-trial
DNA testing under specifed circumstances, Article 64 of the
Page Proof Pending Publication
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Goertz continued to deny
Reed's request for DNA testing of certain items found near
the scene of the murder for which he was convicted 25
years ago.
As the Court notes and the parties agree, the statute of
limitations for Reed's claim is two years. Ante, at 235; Brief
for Petitioner 17; Brief for Respondent 17. Reed fled his
complaint on August 8, 2019, and the lower courts held that
this was too late. The question before us is when the 2-year
statute of limitations began to run, that is in legal parlance,
when Reed's claim “accrued.” As the parties agree, the
general rule is that a claim accrues when the plaintiff has “a
complete and present cause of action,” Wallace v. Kato, 549
U. S. 384, 388 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Reed contends that his claim did not accrue until the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) denied his petition for re-
hearing on October 4, 2017, and thus refused to retract the
interpretation of Article 64 that the court had unanimously
adopted on April 12, 2017. Goertz, on the other hand, ar-
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 257

Alito, J., dissenting

gues that Reed's claim accrued no later than the date of the
CCA's April 12 decision, and because that date preceded the
federal lawsuit by more than two years, Goertz maintains
that we should affrm the Fifth Circuit's decision that Reed's
complaint was fled too late.
As I will explain, there is room for debate about exactly
when Reed's DNA testing claim accrued, but in my view, the
notion that this did not take place until rehearing was denied
is clearly wrong.
I
Before getting to the nub of this case, I briefy explain
why Reed's claim might have accrued even earlier than April
12, 2017. First, it can be argued that Reed's claim against
Goertz accrued on or before July 2014, when Goertz initially
refused Reed's testing request.1 The general rule is that a
plaintiff 's § 1983 claim against a state offcial for violating a
constitutional right accrues when the alleged violation takes
Page Proof Pending Publication
place. See Wallace, 549 U. S., at 388 (§ 1983 claim “normally
commence[s] to run” from when wrong occurs). And the
Court does not disclaim the possibility that a plaintiff could
fle a § 1983 claim as soon as a state prosecutor denies a DNA
testing request. See ante, at 237, and n. 1.
Another possibility is that the particular claim Reed now
asserts did not accrue until the state trial court held that
Goertz had properly denied Reed's testing request. Reed
does not claim that the bare text of Article 64 is unconstitu-
tional. (Had he done so, he could hardly argue, as he does
now, that his claim did not accrue until the end of the appel-
late process.) Instead, he stresses that his claim concerns
the state courts' construction of that statute and in particu-

1
We are told that Reed and Goertz engaged in lengthy negotiations
about the testing of certain items prior to the date in July 2014 when Reed
fled his claim in the District Court of Bastrop County under Article 64.
Brief for Petitioner 13; Brief for Respondent 5–6; see Reed v. State, 541
S. W. 3d 759, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
258 REED v. GOERTZ

Alito, J., dissenting

lar, their holding that the evidence for which testing is
sought must not be contaminated. Brief for Petitioner 3, 15,
29. In response to this argument, Goertz contends that
every allegedly unconstitutional aspect of the judicial inter-
pretation of the statute was adopted by the time the state
trial court issued amended fndings of fact and conclusions of
law in 2016, and Goertz therefore takes the position that
Reed's unconstitutional-construction claim accrued at that
time. Brief for Respondent 18–19.

II
A
For present purposes, it is not necessary to decide whether
Reed's claim accrued on either of these two dates. We need
only decide whether accrual was put off until the CCA de-
nied rehearing, and it is clear to me that this delayed accrual
date is wrong.2 As noted, the claim that Reed asserts is not
Page Proof Pending Publication
based on the bare text of Article 64, but on what he claims
is an erroneous interpretation of that provision by the Texas
courts. He thus submits that his claim accrued when the
“authoritative construction of Article 64” that he challenges
was pronounced by the CCA. Brief for Petitioner 17.
I will assume for the sake of argument that Reed's claim
accrued when the CCA issued its “authoritative construction
of Article 64,” but I cannot agree with Reed's argument—

2
We have noted that a couple special cases can displace that “presump-
tiv[e]” accrual rule, such as where “a particular claim may not realistically
be brought while a violation is ongoing,” or where a special accrual rule
governed “the most natural common-law analogy.” McDonough v. Smith,
588 U. S. –––, ––– – ––– (2019). But the majority (correctly) does not
adopt Reed's view, see Brief for Petitioner 32–39, that this matter raises
one of those special cases. Under Reed's theory as expressed as argu-
ment, he could have proceeded with a claim under Skinner v. Switzer, 562
U. S. 521 (2011), at any time in the process. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12 (stating
that “a prisoner could exit the state court procedures at any point” and
bring a challenge).
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 259

Alito, J., dissenting

which the Court conspicuously declines to defend—that the
CCA's interpretation did not become “authoritative” until re-
hearing was denied.
Reed cites no authority for the proposition that the fling
of a petition for rehearing typically suspends the authorita-
tive force of an appellate court's decision, and in fact, it ap-
pears that the opposite is true—as this Court's “GVR” prac-
tice illustrates. On or shortly after the day when we hand
down a decision, we often “GVR” cases in which petitions
raising similar issues are pending before us. (That is, we
grant the petition, vacate the decision below, and remand
the case for reconsideration in light of the decision we have
handed down.) On June 30, 2022, for example, we did this
in no fewer than 33 cases.3 We do not wait to see if a peti-
tion for rehearing will be fled; nor do we hold off until a
mandate is issued or a certifed copy of the judgment is pre-
pared. See this Court's Rules 45.2 and 45.3. If our deci-
sions did not become authoritative and binding as soon as
Page Proof Pending Publication
they are issued, this practice would be impermissible.
There is no reason why decisions of the CCA should be
viewed any differently. On the contrary, it appears that the
CCA has followed a practice similar to our GVR practice.
See Oliver v. State, 872 S. W. 2d 713, 716 (Tex. Crim. App.
1994) (vacating judgment and remanding for reconsideration
in light of decision on same day). And neither Reed nor the
Court has cited any contrary Texas authority. Accordingly,
Reed's “authoritative construction” argument became com-
plete, at the latest, when the CCA adopted that construction
on April 12, 2017, two years and 11 months before Reed fled
his § 1983 complaint.
B
Unlike Reed, the Court does not contend that the CCA's
interpretation lacked “authoritative” status until rehearing

3
Journal of the Supreme Court 711–716 (June 30, 2022); see, e. g., id., at
685–689 (June 27, 2022) (granting, vacating, and remanding 28 cases).
260 REED v. GOERTZ

Alito, J., dissenting

was denied. Instead, the Court merely proclaims that the
State, acting through Goertz, did not deny Reed due process
of law until “the state litigation ended.” Ante, at 236.4 I
certainly see the logic in this view: until the process afforded
by a State has been exhausted, it may be said that the State
has not defnitively denied the process that the Constitution
is alleged to demand. This logic leads to the conclusion that
a prisoner like Reed should exhaust state remedies—some-
thing that would generally be required if the proper vehicle
for contesting the denial of a DNA testing claim were a peti-
tion for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b)(1).
But the Court rejected that proposition in District Attor-
ney's Offce for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U. S. 52
(2009), and it is well-established that a § 1983 plaintiff need
not exhaust state remedies. Patsy v. Board of Regents of
Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 500–501 (1982); Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U. S. 641, 649 (1997). Not only is this the general rule, but
the Osborne Court found that the rule applies in cases in-
Page Proof Pending Publication
volving constitutional challenges to the denial of requested
DNA testing. 557 U. S., at 71. Thus, the Court's reasoning
collides with precedent.
On top of this, the Court's reasoning, if taken to its logi-
cal conclusion, points to a result that neither Reed nor the
Court is willing to embrace: namely, that a due process chal-
lenge to the denial of a request for DNA testing is not ripe
until state remedies have been exhausted. (Reed squarely
rejects that conclusion, Brief for Petitioner 48; Tr. of Oral
Arg. 12–13, and the Court reserves judgment. Ante, at 237,
n. 1.) But that is where the Court's reasoning is likely to
lead.

4
Even the CCA's denial of rehearing in a DNA testing case may not
mark the end of state court litigation on that issue, to the extent that the
issue may be taken up again in a state collateral review proceeding or
otherwise renewed. Cf. Darnell v. State, 2004 WL 1088755, *1 (Tex. App.,
May 13, 2004) (discussing “reconsider[ation]” granted in DNA-testing ac-
tion “after submission of additional information”).
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 261

Alito, J., dissenting

Reed tries to circumvent this problem by distinguishing
between a claim that challenges the literal terms of a state
law and one that challenges the law as authoritatively inter-
preted by the State's highest court. Brief for Petitioner 30,
48. On this view, only claims of the latter type would have
to proceed through the entire state court appellate process
before a § 1983 challenge could be brought. But this catego-
rization of DNA-testing claims is problematic. When a
State's high court interprets a state law, it generally settles
what the law always meant, and therefore it is hard to see
the difference between a claim that the text of a state statute
is unconstitutional and a claim that the text is unconsti-
tutional as interpreted by the State's highest court. In
the case of a state law like Article 64, which permits DNA
testing under limited circumstances, the court may interpret
the statute to impose requirements that are not expressly
spelled out in the statutory text. (That is what happened
Page Proof Pending Publication
here.) Or the state high court may interpret requirements
in the text more leniently than a literal reading of the text
would demand. In either event, the statute means what the
state high court says it means, and if accrual in the frst of
these situations does not take place until the end of appellate
review, it is hard to see why the same should not be true in
the second as well.
In light of these problems, it is not surprising that the
Court declines to say anything about whether prisoners who
wish to challenge a state DNA testing law may sue as soon
as their testing requests are denied. The Court says only
that it “need not address th[e] hypothetical scenario” of a
plaintiff who declines “full appellate review,” ante, at 237,
n. 1, but what does that mean? Does it mean that such a
plaintiff must exhaust state remedies at the trial level but
need not appeal? Does it mean that such a plaintiff must
pursue some (but not “full”) appellate review? Litigants
and the lower courts are left to guess. Instead of clarifying
the law, the Court's decision may sow confusion.
262 REED v. GOERTZ

Alito, J., dissenting

C
Much of Reed's argumentation is not aimed at the argu-
ment that his claim accrued when the CCA issued its con-
tested interpretation of Article 64. Instead, Reed directs
his attack on the earlier possible accrual dates discussed in
Part I of this opinion and in particular the Fifth Circuit's
holding that a claim like Reed's accrues when testing is de-
nied at the trial level. He says that this rule is unfair be-
cause he “isn't Nostradamus,” lacks “supernatural fore-
sight,” and therefore could not have predicted at the time of
the trial court decision whether the CCA would ultimately
agree. Brief for Petitioner 26, 32. He argues that his rule
promotes federalism (because it encourages resort to state
court litigation before turning to the federal courts), judicial
economy (because it tends to avoid contemporaneous litiga-
tion in both state and federal court), comity (because it
allows state courts to adopt interpretations of their statutes
Page Proof Pending Publication
that avoid federal constitutional problems), and practical re-
ality (because a prisoner bringing an authoritative-
construction claim cannot know in advance how a State's
high court will interpret the relevant statute). Id., at 36–
39. The Court makes related arguments. Ante, at 236–237.
Whatever merit these arguments might have in relation
to the accrual date adopted by the Fifth Circuit, they ring
hollow as applied to the choice between the date when a state
high court issues a decision interpreting the state testing
statute and the date when that court refuses to rehear and
overturn that interpretation. One need not have “supernat-
ural foresight” in order to predict that rehearing is unlikely
to be granted. And it is hard to see how requiring a § 1983
plaintiff to sue within two years after a state high court deci-
sion is issued is unfair or does any damage to federalism,
comity, or judicial economy.
Reed has provided no explanation why he could not have
fled his § 1983 action within two years after the CCA's deci-
sion. Instead, he waited until an execution date was set.
 Cite as: 598 U. S. 230 (2023) 263

Alito, J., dissenting

While that event may have “concentrate[d] his mind wonder-
fully,” that is not an excuse for the basic mistake of missing
a statute of limitations.5
* * *
For these reasons, I would affrm the judgment below, and
I therefore respectfully dissent.

Page Proof Pending Publication

5
J. Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D., in 44 Great Books of the
Western World 351 (R. Hutchins & M. Adler eds. 1952) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
 Reporter’s Note

The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication
and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination
makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of
publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions
Page Proof Pending Publication
for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of
the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and
who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was
argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may
include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant
punctuation. The following additional edits were made:

None