Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Rodney Reed v. Bryan Goertz, in His Official Capacity as District Attorney of Bastrop County, Texas

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 19-70022 · judgment May 1, 2025


Certiorari denied · March 23, 2026
Pre-decision estimate: 16% cert probability (95% interval 11%–23%)

Before the decision, about 3.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a petition filed soon after the judgment below, counsel who has won certiorari before, and a Fifth Circuit decision below.

Question presented

In 2023, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s holding that Rodney Reed’s DNA-testing suit was untimely and rejected District Attorney Bryan Goertz’s jurisdictional arguments. Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230 (2023). The case now returns on the merits, as Goertz continues refusing to test the murder weapon. Reed has been on death row for over a quarter century for a crime he steadfastly maintains he didn’t commit. Since he was convicted, Reed has amassed a “substantial body of evidence” refuting the state’s theory of the case. Reed v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 686, 689 (2020) (statement of Sotomayor, J., respecting the denial of certiorari). Despite the resulting “pall of uncertainty over Reed’s conviction,” id. at 690, Goertz refuses to DNA-test the murder weapon—testing that Reed’s attorneys have offered to pay for and that could prove his innocence. Instead, Goertz relies on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal’s (CCA) authoritative construction of Texas’s postconviction DNA-testing statute, Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, to insist that Reed isn’t entitled to DNA testing. The CCA’s construction rests, among other things, on the notion that potentially “contaminated” evidence cannot yield probative DNA results—a notion that science disproves and that Texas itself rejects in many cases when seeking to prove guilt. The question presented is whether Article 64, as authoritatively construed by the CCA, violates due process by arbitrarily denying prisoners access to postconviction DNA testing, rendering illusory prisoners’ state-created right to prove their innocence through newly discovered evidence.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Parker Andrew Rider-Longmaid
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

For respondent
Travis Golden Bragg
Office of the Attorney General of Texas

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 15 conferences

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Argument & decision

Decided March 23, 2026.

Proceedings

  1. Mar 23 2026
    Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)
  2. Mar 16 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
  3. Mar 02 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2026.
  4. Feb 23 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/27/2026.
  5. Feb 13 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
  6. Jan 20 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/23/2026.
  7. Jan 12 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
  8. Jan 05 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
  9. Dec 08 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/12/2025.
  10. Dec 01 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.
  11. Nov 18 2025
    Rescheduled.
  12. Nov 17 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2025.
  13. Nov 10 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/14/2025.
  14. Nov 10 2025
    Rescheduled.
  15. Nov 03 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
  16. Nov 03 2025
    Rescheduled.
  17. Oct 14 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/17/2025.
  18. Oct 14 2025
    Rescheduled.
  19. Oct 07 2025
    Rescheduled.
  20. Sep 17 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
  21. Sep 15 2025
    The electronic record on appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee was received. All other records are available on PACER.
  22. Sep 08 2025
    Record Requested.
  23. Sep 08 2025
    The record of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is available on PACER.
  24. Aug 27 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
  25. Aug 27 2025
    Reply of petitioner Rodney Reed filed. (Distributed)
  26. Aug 13 2025
    Brief of respondent Bryan Goertz in opposition filed.
  27. Jul 10 2025
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 13, 2025.
  28. Jul 10 2025
    Brief amicus curiae of Chase Baumgartner filed.
  29. Jul 08 2025
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 14, 2025 to August 13, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
  30. Jun 10 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 14, 2025)