Supreme Court Takes Up Texas Inmate's Late Disability Claim

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments this Wednesday in a case involving Dexter Johnson, a Texas death row inmate. The dispute centers on whether federal courts have the authority to consider new medical evidence in a second habeas petition. Johnson was convicted of capital murder in 2006 for the killing of 23-year-old Maria Aparece. His execution was originally scheduled for May 2019, but a federal court stayed the sentence after his legal team raised a claim of intellectual disability.

Johnson’s lawyers filed the disability claim just days before his scheduled execution. They argued that the 2013 release of the DSM-5 changed how clinicians view intellectual disability. The new manual moved away from a rigid IQ threshold and instead focused on adaptive functioning deficits. Under this updated framework, a trial expert withdrew the previous basis for denying a diagnosis. Two additional experts later concluded that Johnson meets the definition of intellectual disability.

Ethan Nutter, a lawyer who filed an amicus brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, explained that the medical community’s understanding of the condition has evolved over the last two decades. Nutter noted that the Supreme Court has previously ruled it is unconstitutional to execute someone with an intellectual disability. His team argues that Johnson qualifies under current standards, making the new evidence relevant to his case.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice 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 ruling removes strict limits on claims based on new evidence. The agency stated that for the people of Texas and the families of victims, justice delayed is justice denied. The state contends that allowing such late claims creates uncertainty in the execution process.

Protasio Aparece, the father of the victim, also filed an amicus brief. He expressed an interest in seeing justice carried out for his daughter and in preventing other families from suffering decades of delay. The case presents a procedural question about the scope of federal habeas corpus power. Nutter described the core issue as whether a federal court can address a second or successive petition when new scientific evidence emerges.

The justices are expected to issue a decision in the case by June 2027. The ruling will determine how strictly federal courts must adhere to procedural finality when prisoners present new medical data regarding their cognitive abilities.