Supreme Court hears Texas death row case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in a case involving a Texas death row inmate. The dispute centers on whether federal courts can accept new medical evidence after a prisoner has already filed one habeas petition. The inmate is Dexter Johnson. He was convicted of capital murder in 2006 for the killing of 23-year-old Maria Aparece. Johnson was originally scheduled for execution in May 2019. A federal court stayed that execution after his legal team raised a claim of intellectual disability. That claim was not part of his initial trial.

Johnson’s lawyers filed the new claim days before his scheduled death. They relied on a 2013 update to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. The DSM-5 changed how clinicians view intellectual disability. It moved away from a rigid IQ threshold and focused more on adaptive functioning deficits. Under this new framework, two additional experts concluded that Johnson is intellectually disabled. One trial expert also withdrew a previous opinion that had ruled out the diagnosis.

Ethan Nutter, a lawyer who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the medical community’s understanding of the condition has shifted over the last two decades. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to execute a person with an intellectual disability. Nutter stated that the core legal question is whether a federal court can address a second or successive habeas petition. This procedural issue determines if new evidence can be considered after a first challenge has been resolved.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Correctional Institutions asked the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in February 2026. In its brief, the department argued that the lower court’s holding erases strict limits on claims based on new evidence. The state also wrote that for the families of victims, justice delayed is justice denied. The state’s position suggests that allowing new evidence could open the door for many other inmates to delay executions.

Protasio Aparece, the father of the victim, filed a separate amicus brief. His legal team wrote that he has an interest in seeing justice carried out for his daughter. They added that he wants to ensure no other family suffers decades of excessive delays. The Aparece family’s statement underscores the human cost of the procedural delay in the case.

The justices are expected to issue a decision in the case by June 2027. The ruling will set a precedent for how federal courts handle late-arising medical evidence in death penalty cases. It will also clarify the boundaries of successive habeas petitions in the Fifth Circuit and potentially other jurisdictions.