NACDL - Reed v. Goertz

Reed v. Goertz

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU Foundation Of Texas, Inc., the Cato Institute and the Rutherford Institute As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner.

Reed v. Goertz

Brief Details

Case No.: 21-442
Brief Filed: July 08, 2022
Jurisdiction: United States Supreme Court

Key Topics in the Brief

Section 1983 | DNA | Post-conviction DNA testing

Briefs

Reed-v-Goertz-Brief.pdf

Prior Decision

Decision below 995 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2021)

Argument(s)

NACDL’s amicus brief argues that the Fifth and Seventh Circuits’ rule would require § 1983 plaintiffs to initiate parallel federal litigation, contrary to principles of judicial economy, federalism, comity, and constitutional avoidance. Federal courts generally would stay a parallel § 1983 action under Pullman. Federal courts also may stay a parallel § 1983 action for declaratory relief. If federal courts do not stay a parallel § 1983 action, they risk making constitutional decisions unnecessarily or based on erroneous interpretations of state law. The Fifth and Seventh Circuits’ rule is unworkable and has no discernible benefit, despite its significant costs.

Author(s)

Sean M. SeLegue and Liam E. O’Connor, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, CA; Barbara E. Bergman, NACDL, Tucson, AZ; David D. Cole, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC; Adriana Pinon and Savannah Kumar, ACLU Foundation of Texas, Inc., Houston, TX; Clark, M. Neily III and Jay R. Schweikert, Cato Institute, Washington, DC; John W. Whitehead and William Winters, The Rutherford Institute, Charlottesville, VA.