IANAL either, but it sounds like Thomas is saying that the Colorado Exoneration Act was carefully written to specifically cover cases like this in that it enumerated the rights and entitlements of those exonerated who follow that process, and the court's majority opinion "does not seriously attempt to ground [their opposite] conclusion in state or federal law. If petitioners' supposed right to an automatic refund arises under Colorado law, then the Colorado Supreme Court remains free on remand to clarify whether that right in fact exists. If it arises under substantive due process, then the Court's procedural due process analysis misses the point."

This is an archetypally typical Thomas opinion, melding both a very literal and narrow reading of the Constitution and laws with a strong preference towards states' rights.

Meanwhile, Alito's concurring (with the majority) opinion is a fascinating read in its own right, building on similar rationales to those of Thomas while using a comparative, devil's advocate approach to illustrate absurdities in both the laws and the interpretation of the majority, yet reaching a pragmatic conclusion that happens to concur with the majority in its final judgment.