The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the following cases involving issues of interest to capital habeas litigators:
Villarreal v. Texas, 24-557 (cert. granted April 7, 2025)
Case below: ___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 4446740 (Tex. Crim. App.)
Question presented:
Whether a trial court abridges the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.
Click here to view the petition for writ of certiorari.
Bowe v. United States, 24-5438 (cert. granted Jan. 17, 2025)
Case below: 11th Cir. (unpublished)
Questions Presented:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” (emphasis added).
The first question presented is:
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
* * *
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari.” (emphasis added).
The second question presented is:
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Click here to view the certiorari petition.
Rivers v. Lumpkin, 23-1345 (cert. granted December 6, 2024)
Case below:99 F.4th 216 (5th Cir.)
Question presented:
Under the federal habeas statute, a prisoner "always gets one chance to bring a federal habeas challenge to his conviction," Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 509 (2020). After that, the stringent gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) bar nearly all attempts to file a "second or successive habeas corpus application." Here, petitioner sought to amend his initial habeas application while it was pending on appeal. The Fifth Circuit applied § 2244(b)(2) and rejected the amended filing.
The circuits are intractably split on whether § 2244(b)(2) applies to such filings. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits hold that § 2244(b)(2) categorically applies to all second-in-time habeas filings made after the district court enters final judgment. The Second Circuit disagrees, applying § 2244(b)(2) only after a petitioner exhausts appellate review of his initial petition. And the Third and Tenth Circuits exempt some second-in-time filings from § 2244(b)(2), depending on whether a prisoner prevails on his initial appeal (Third Circuit) or satisfies a seven-factor test (Tenth Circuit).
The question presented is:
Whether § 2244(b)(2) applies (i) only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, (ii) to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or (iii) to some second-in-time filings, depending on a prisoner's success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.
Click hereto view the certiorari petition. Argument will be heard on March 31, 2025.
Gutierrez v. Saenz, 23-7809 (cert. granted October 4, 2024)
Question presented:
In Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 234 (2023), this Court held that Rodney Reed has standing to pursue a declaratory judgment that Texas’s post-conviction DNA statute was unconstitutional because “Reed suffered an injury in fact,” the named defendant “caused Reed’s injury,” and if a federal court concludes that Texas’s statute violates due process, it is “substantially likely that the state prosecutor would abide by such a court order.”
In this case, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to follow that ruling over a dissent that recognized that this case was indistinguishable from Reed. The majority formulated its own novel test for Article III standing, which requires scouring the record of the parties’ dispute and any legal arguments asserted, to predict whether the defendants in a particular case would actually redress the plaintiff’s injury by complying with a federal court’s declaratory judgment. Gutierrez v. Saenz, 93 F.4th 267, 274 (5th Cir. 2024).
The Fifth Circuit’s new test conflicts with Reed and creates a circuit split with the United States Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, which have applied the standing doctrine exactly as this Court directed in Reed. See Johnson v. Griffin, 69 F.4th 506 (8th Cir. 2023); Redd v. Guerrero, 84 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2023). The question presented is:
Does Article III standing require a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment?
Click here to view the certiorari petition. Argument was heard on February 24, 2025.