The Supreme Court heard Texas’s bid to stop a condemned double murderer from reopening his case 19 years after his death sentence, using a newer medical test for intellectual disability.
Story Highlights
- Texas wants to block Dexter Johnson, condemned for the 2006 murders of Maria Aparece, 23, and Huy Ngo, 17, from bringing a second federal challenge to his death sentence.
- Johnson says he is intellectually disabled under a 2013 update to a leading psychiatric manual, and the Constitution bars executing intellectually disabled people.
- Texas says the update changed the facts, not the law, so federal law does not let him start over.
- In August 2019, less than 24 hours before his scheduled execution, a federal appeals court stopped it so his new claim could be reviewed.
- The murdered woman’s father asked the justices to end the delays. A ruling is expected by June 2027.
What Texas Asked The Justices To Decide
On Wednesday, November 4, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Guerrero v. Johnson. Texas asked the justices to throw out a lower-court ruling that lets Johnson press a new claim that he is too intellectually disabled to be executed. The state wants to carry out the sentence, and it says federal law shuts the door on a claim brought this late. Justice delayed is justice denied for Texans and for the victims’ families, the state told the court. A ruling is expected by June 2027.
The case turns on a 1996 federal law that sharply limits second habeas petitions. A habeas petition is a prisoner’s request that a federal court review whether he is being held lawfully. The law allows a second one only in narrow cases, such as when a claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law that was “previously unavailable.” The Trump administration, along with Louisiana and 21 other states, filed briefs backing Texas.
The Crimes Behind The Case
Johnson was 18, only days past his birthday, when in June 2006 he and four other teens carjacked and robbed Maria Aparece, 23, and Huy Ngo, 17, as the couple sat in her car outside Ngo’s home in Harris County, which includes Houston. The group took the couple to a secluded spot, where Johnson raped Aparece. Johnson and another teen then shot both victims, killing them. A Harris County jury sentenced Johnson to death in 2007.
Prosecutors have said the killings were part of a 25-day crime spree. Aparece’s father, Protasio Aparece, filed his own brief with the justices. He says he wants justice for his daughter and wants to spare other families from years of delay like the ones his family has lived through.
Johnson’s Disability Claim
In 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that executing people with intellectual disability violates the Constitution. Johnson did not raise that claim at his trial or in his first federal appeal. A defense expert at trial put his IQ between 74 and 88. A new test in April 2019 scored him at 70.
In May 2013, the American Psychiatric Association published the DSM-5, the manual doctors use to diagnose mental conditions. It put less weight on strict IQ cutoffs and more on how a person handles daily life. Johnson’s lawyers say that under the new manual, his trial expert no longer stands by his earlier finding, and two more experts have concluded he is intellectually disabled. Prosecutors have pointed to higher IQ scores from around the time of his trial.
Years Of Delay And What Comes Next
Johnson’s lawyers raised the disability claim in 2019, as his execution dates neared. A federal judge postponed a May 2019 execution date so a newly appointed lawyer could review the case. Then on August 14, 2019, less than 24 hours before a second execution date, the federal appeals court in New Orleans stopped it and sent the claim back for review. A federal judge later found the claim “previously unavailable,” and the appeals court agreed in July 2025. The full appeals court refused to rehear the case by a 9-7 vote.
Texas says that ruling “erases the strict limits on claims based on new evidence.” The state argues the medical update may have given Johnson new facts, but it did not create any new rule of law. Johnson’s side says the rule could not protect him until the new manual made his claim possible to prove. A win for Texas would end his new claim. A win for Johnson would let a federal court hear it.
Sources:
wfsb.com, texastribune.org, texastribune.org, law360.com
