Thursday, November 5, 2026Memphis · 67°/51°, TennesseeEst. 2026
Markets · loading
Law & Courts
Law
Wikipedia
Justices hear Texas bid to block second habeas filing by death-row inmate
Guerrero v. Johnson asks when a prisoner's claim counts as 'previously unavailable' under federal habeas law
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Wednesday in Guerrero v. Johnson (No. 25-1003). Texas is appealing a Fifth Circuit ruling that let death-row inmate Dexter Johnson pursue a second federal habeas petition. Johnson was convicted of the 2006 kidnapping, rape and murder of Maria Aparece. His claim is that he is intellectually disabled and so ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The question is whether a claim is 'previously unavailable' under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(A) when it had no realistic chance of success at the time of his first petition. Texas argues Atkins predates both the crime and his first petition, so it is not a 'new' rule. The U.S. government filed an amicus brief supporting that position. Johnson answers that Texas courts did not adopt current diagnostic criteria until 2018. The Fifth Circuit denied en banc rehearing 9-7 in January. A decision is expected before the term ends next summer.
Why it mattersThe ruling will set how far AEDPA's limits on successive habeas petitions reach, in capital cases and in federal prisoners' parallel filings.
Prediction-market firm has about 90 days to seek certiorari after another appellate loss on state gambling authority
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit on Wednesday denied Kalshi's petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in its Nevada case. No judge asked for a full-court vote. The order leaves in place the panel's August 28 ruling. That ruling upheld the dissolution of an injunction that had shielded Kalshi's sports event contracts from Nevada gaming regulators. The panel found Kalshi had not shown the contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, so state gambling law can apply. Kalshi now has 90 days, which runs into early February, to petition the Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit ruled against Kalshi in September in consolidated Ohio and Tennessee cases. That ruling binds federal courts in Tennessee, where Underdog has also sued the state over its own event-contract exchange. The Third Circuit sided with Kalshi in New Jersey, and several certiorari petitions on the question are already pending.
Why it mattersThe circuit split over whether CFTC registration pre-empts state gambling law is heading toward the Supreme Court, and Tennessee is already on the losing side for the platforms.
Davidson County judge blocks Tennessee's new driver's license limits for DACA holders
Temporary order requires state to accept work permits and other federal documents while the suit proceeds
NASHVILLE — A Davidson County judge issued a temporary restraining order on November 2 against new Tennessee driver's license restrictions. The Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition and six individuals sued the Department of Safety and Homeland Security. They were joined by the National Immigration Law Center and the firm Bass, Berry & Sims. The suit says the department abruptly stopped accepting employment authorization documents and other federal papers as proof of lawful presence. It now requires a visa, I-94 or temporary green card. DACA recipients and people with Temporary Protected Status reported being turned away. Plaintiffs also argue the state skipped required rulemaking. The coalition says the order takes effect once a bond is posted, which it planned to do Tuesday. The order does not decide the underlying case or strike the policy permanently. The department declined to discuss pending litigation.
Why it mattersThe case tests whether a Tennessee agency can change documentation rules for thousands of lawfully present residents without formal rulemaking.
NEW YORK — A New York state appeals court in Brooklyn on Wednesday reversed a lower-court order that had forced the city to restart the rollout of Mayor Zohran Mamdani's pied-a-terre tax on high-end second homes. The four-judge panel unanimously dismissed the homeowners' suit for lack of standing. It reversed a September ruling by a Staten Island judge. The judges held that receiving an initial tax notice, or appearing on the city's valuation list, did not show enough harm to sue. They also rejected arguments that the process caused injury through privacy concerns or the cost of seeking exemptions. The ruling lets the city keep implementing the surcharge. Plaintiffs' lawyer Randy Mastro criticized the court for not reaching the merits. The tax still faces other challenges, including a separate constitutional suit and cases in Suffolk County.
Why it mattersThe decision shows how courts are applying standing rules to early-stage challenges against new local taxes, while the merits questions remain open.
