Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 12

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

track incorporation came “late in the day.”30  Late it was. 
The  Court  had  already,  nearly  a  decade  earlier,  “rejected
the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the
States only a ‘watered-down, subjective version of the indi-
vidual guarantees of the Bill of Rights.’ ”31  It’s a point we’ve
restated many times since, too, including as recently as last 
year.32  Still, Justice Powell frankly explained, he was “un-
willin[g]” to follow the Court’s precedents.33  So he offered 
up the essential fifth vote to uphold Mr. Apodaca’s convic-
tion—if based only on a view of the Fourteenth Amendment
that he knew was (and remains) foreclosed by precedent. 

B 
In the years following Apodaca, both Louisiana and Ore-
gon chose to continue allowing nonunanimous verdicts.  But 
their practices have always stood on shaky ground.  After 
all,  while  Justice  Powell’s  vote  secured  a  favorable  judg-
ment for the States in Apodaca, it’s never been clear what 
rationale  could  support  a  similar  result  in  future  cases. 
Only two possibilities exist:  Either the Sixth Amendment 
allows nonunanimous verdicts, or the Sixth Amendment’s 
guarantee of a jury trial applies with less force to the States
under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Yet, as we’ve seen, both 
bear their problems.  In Apodaca itself, a majority of Jus-
tices—including Justice Powell—recognized that the Sixth 
Amendment  demands  unanimity,  just  as  our  cases  have 
long said.  And this Court’s precedents, both then and now,
prevent the Court from applying the Sixth Amendment to 
the States in some mutated and diminished form under the 

—————— 

30 Id., at 375. 
31 Id., at 384 (Douglas, J., dissenting) (quoting Malloy, 378 U. S., at 10– 
11); Johnson, 406 U. S., at 395–396 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (collecting 
cases). 

32 See, e.g., Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 3) 

(unanimously rejecting arguments for dual-track incorporation). 

33 Johnson, 406 U. S., at 375–376, and n. 15 (concurring opinion).