Thomas, J., dissenting
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 attorney’s] justification for denying DNA testing.” Ante, at 3. 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 final, binding determination of Reed’s Chapter 64 rights even if the District Court were to declare that, in its opinion, the CCA had applied that law unconstitutionally in Reed’s case. Alternatively, 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 “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 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). Again, the only “court order” Reed seeks is a declaration disapproving the legal underpinnings 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 the declaration Reed seeks. Ibid. (quoting Utah, 536 U. S., at 464). The intended meaning of this statement is completely obscure. The “status” that the majority has in mind cannot be that of Chapter 64 itself. See California, 593
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.
