In the case of Henry W. Skinner v. Lynn Switzer, District Attorney for the 31st Judicial District of Texas (2010), Skinner sought access to DNA evidence that was not tested before his trial for capital murder in 1995. He claimed this violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under Section 1983 against Switzer, seeking access to the evidence for testing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Skinner, stating that he had a right to pursue his claims through a civil rights action rather than just through habeas corpus proceedings as previously determined by lower courts. This ruling did not determine whether or not Skinner was entitled to testing but allowed him an avenue outside of habeas corpus petitions to argue for it.

In the dissenting opinion for Skinner v. Switzer, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, argued that federal courts should not have jurisdiction over state post-conviction DNA testing claims under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. They contended that such claims are inherently habeas corpus in nature and therefore fall outside the scope of Section 1983. The justices believed that allowing these types of cases to proceed under Section 1983 would undermine Congress's intent to limit federal court interference with state criminal proceedings through strict limitations on habeas corpus relief. Furthermore, they asserted that Skinner had already been given ample opportunity to present his claim for DNA testing in Texas courts and was simply using this lawsuit as a way around unfavorable state rulings.