Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–5924 
_________________ 

EVANGELISTO RAMOS, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL 
OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT 

[April 20, 2020] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. 
I agree with the Court that petitioner Evangelisto Ramos’ 
felony conviction by a nonunanimous jury was unconstitu-
tional.  I write separately because I would resolve this case 
based  on  the  Court’s  longstanding  view  that  the  Sixth
Amendment  includes  a  protection  against  nonunanimous 
felony guilty verdicts, without undertaking a fresh analysis 
of  the  meaning  of  “trial  . . .  by  an  impartial  jury.”  I  also 
would make clear that this right applies against the States
through  the  Privileges  or  Immunities  Clause  of  the  Four-
teenth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause. 

I 
I begin with the parties’ dispute as to whether the Sixth
Amendment  right  to  a  trial  by  jury  includes  a  protection 
against nonunanimous felony guilty verdicts.  On this ques-
tion, I do not write on a blank slate.  As the Court acknowl-
edges, our decisions have long recognized that unanimity is
required.  See ante, at 6–7.  Because this interpretation is
not  demonstrably  erroneous,  I  would  resolve  the  Sixth 
Amendment question on that basis. 

A 
This Court first decided that the Sixth Amendment pro-
tected a right to unanimity in Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 
343  (1898).  The  Court  reasoned  that  Thompson,  a  Utah
prisoner,  was  protected  by  the  Sixth  Amendment  when