Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 79.0

18 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

as safeguards against oppression.  In Hurtado v. California, 
110  U. S.  516,  538  (1884),  the  Court  held  that  the  Grand 
Jury  Clause  does  not  bind  the  States  and  that  they  may 
substitute  preliminary  hearings  at  which  the  decision  to 
allow a prosecution to go forward is made by a judge rather
than a defendant’s peers.  That decision was based on rea-
soning that is not easy to distinguish from Justice Powell’s 
in  Apodaca.  Hurtado  remains  good  law  and  is  critically
important  to  the  28  States  that  allow  a  defendant  to  be
prosecuted for a felony without a grand jury indictment.28 
If we took the same approach to the Hurtado question that
the  majority  takes  in  this  case,  the  holding  in  that  case 
could be called into question.

The majority’s only other reason for overruling Apodaca
is that it is inconsistent with related decisions and recent 
legal developments.  Ante, at 21; ante, at 2 (SOTOMAYOR, J., 
concurring in part).  I agree that Justice Powell’s view on 
incorporation is not in harmony with the bulk of our case
law,  but  the  majority’s  point  about  “recent  legal  develop-
ments”  is  an  exaggeration.  No  subsequent  Sixth  Amend-
ment  decision  has  undercut  the  plurality.  And  while 
Justice  Powell’s  view  on  incorporation  has  been  further 

—————— 

28 See Ariz. Const., Art. 2, §30; Ark. Const., Amdt. 21, §1; Cal. Const., 
Art. I, §14; Colo. Rev. Stat. §16–5–205 (2019); Conn. Gen. Stat. §54–46
(2017); Haw. Const., Art. I, §10; Idaho Const., Art. I, §8; Ill. Comp. Stat.,
ch. 725, §5/111–2(a) (West 2018); Ind. Code §35–34–1–1(a) (2019); Iowa
Ct.  Rule  2.5  (2020);  Kan.  Stat.  Ann.  §22–3201  (2007);  Md.  Crim.  Proc. 
Code Ann. §§4–102, 4–103 (2018); Mich. Comp. Laws §767.1 (1979); Mo. 
Const., Art. I, §17; Mont. Const., Art. II, §20(1); Neb. Rev. Stat. §29–1601
(2016); Nev. Const., Art. I, §8; N. M. Const., Art II, §14; N. D. Rule Crim.
Proc. 7(a) (2018–2019); Okla. Const., Art II, §17; Ore. Const. (amended),
Art. VII, §§5(3)–(5); Pa. Const., Art. I, §10 (providing that “[e]ach of the 
several courts of common pleas may, with the approval of the Supreme
Court,  provide  for  the  initiation  of  criminal  proceedings  therein  by
information”—a condition that has now been met in all counties); see also
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §8931 (2015); S. D. Const., Art. VI, §10; Utah Const., 
Art. I, §13; Vt. Rule Crim. Proc. 7(a) (2018); Wash. Rev. Code §10.37.015 
(2019); Wis. Stat. §967.05 (2015–2016); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §7–1–106(a) (2019).