Supreme Court hears Texas death row case

The U.S. Supreme Court began hearings on Wednesday regarding the sentence of Texas death row inmate Dexter Johnson. The dispute centers on a legal challenge Johnson’s team filed to overturn his death penalty. They argue he possesses an intellectual disability, a condition not raised during his initial trial. The Court is set to decide if federal courts can evaluate such late-breaking claims.

Johnson was convicted of capital murder in 2006 for the killing of 23-year-old Maria Aparece. He was originally scheduled for execution in May 2019. A federal court stayed his sentence after reviewing the new evidence. This legal maneuver followed the 2013 release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, or DSM-5. That update changed how clinicians assess intellectual disability by focusing on adaptive functioning rather than rigid IQ thresholds.

Johnson’s legal team cited the DSM-5 in a Supreme Court filing. They noted that a trial expert previously withdrew the basis for denying a disability diagnosis under the old standards. Two additional experts subsequently concluded that Johnson is intellectually disabled. Ethan Nutter, a lawyer who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, supported this view. He stated that the medical community’s understanding of the condition has shifted over the last two decades.

“Under the current understanding, Mr. Johnson meets that definition of intellectual disability,” Nutter said. He added that the Supreme Court has previously ruled it unconstitutional to execute individuals with this condition. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Correctional Institutions asked the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision in February 2026. The department argued that the lower court’s ruling erases strict limits on claims based on new evidence.

The Texas agency also wrote that for the families of victims, justice delayed is justice denied. Protasio Aparece, the father of the victim, filed a separate amicus brief. His legal team stated that Protasio has an interest in seeing justice carried out for his daughter. They also noted his desire to ensure no other family suffers decades of excessive delays. The Court’s decision will clarify how strict federal courts must be when prisoners file successive habeas petitions.

Nutter described the central question as a specific procedural issue. “The narrow issue in this case that the Supreme Court is actually deciding is whether the federal court can address this, what’s called a second or successive habeas petition,” he said. The Court is expected to issue a final decision in the matter by June 2027.