Texas asked the Supreme Court to stop a Houston-area double murderer from using a newer medical standard to reopen his death sentence, saying the victims’ families have waited long enough.
Story Snapshot
- The justices heard Guerrero v. Johnson on Wednesday, November 4. A ruling is expected by the summer of 2027.
- Dexter Johnson was sentenced to death in 2007 for the 2006 murders of Maria Aparece, 23, and her boyfriend, Huy Ngo, 17.
- Johnson now says he is too intellectually disabled to be executed, citing a 2002 Supreme Court ruling.
- Texas says a 2013 change in a psychiatric manual gave Johnson new facts at most, not the new rule of law that federal law requires for a second appeal.
- The Trump administration, along with Louisiana and 21 other states, backs Texas.
What Guerrero v. Johnson Is Really About
Texas brought the case to keep Johnson from pressing a late claim that he is too intellectually disabled to be executed. Eric Guerrero, who directs the Texas prison system’s institutions division, is the named party. A 1996 federal law, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, sharply limits a prisoner’s second habeas petition, which is a request that a federal court review whether he is held lawfully. One narrow exception covers a claim that relies on a new constitutional rule that was “previously unavailable.” Texas says Johnson’s claim does not fit.
This Wednesday (Nov. 4) the Supreme Court hears Guerrero v. Johnson, about second habeas petitions: when is a new constitutional rule "previously unavailable"? The answer could shape when state prisoners get another shot in federal court. #habeas
— Pro Se Help, LLC. (@prosehelpllc) November 4, 2026
Johnson’s claim rests on Atkins v. Virginia, the 2002 ruling that bars executing people with intellectual disability. That ruling came before his crime, his trial and his first federal petition. In Texas’s words, Johnson’s claim “does not rely on a change in the law.” The state adds that “an object—or a rule—can be available even when it is not needed or useful.”
How A Medical Manual Reopened The Case
In May 2013, the American Psychiatric Association published the DSM-5, the guidebook doctors use to diagnose mental conditions. It put less weight on strict IQ cutoffs. Texas’s highest criminal court adopted it in 2018. A defense expert at trial had put Johnson’s IQ between 74 and 88, but a test in April 2019 scored him at 70. Johnson then argued that he qualifies as intellectually disabled under the new manual.
A federal judge agreed the claim was “previously unavailable” and stayed his execution. The Fifth Circuit, the federal appeals court in New Orleans, upheld that ruling in July 2025, and the full court declined to rehear it by a 9-7 vote. Texas says the manual may have given Johnson a new fact, but it did not make any rule newly available. Johnson’s lawyers answer that “what changed was the framework that made Atkins capable of protecting him.”
Why Victims’ Families And States Are Watching
Johnson was convicted of capital murder for the 2006 killings of Maria Aparece and her boyfriend, Huy Ngo, in Harris County. Nineteen years have passed since a jury sentenced him to death. The Trump administration filed a brief backing Texas, and so did Louisiana and 21 other states. The states call the lower court’s approach “a recipe for eternal Atkins claims and zero finality,” meaning death cases might never truly close.
Johnson’s lawyers say the fear of endless appeals is overblown because few new rules apply to old cases. They have also asked the justices to dismiss the case without a ruling, pointing to what they call Texas’s shifting arguments. A ruling for Texas would end Johnson’s new claim. A ruling for Johnson would let it go forward. Either way, the decision will set the rule for federal courts across the country.
Sources:
scotusblog.com, law.cornell.edu, oyez.org, law.justia.com