Moore v. Texas
Headline: Court grants temporary stays of execution for two death-row inmates claiming intellectual disability, pausing their executions while the justices consider petitions for review and the rule on executing the mentally retarded.
Holding:
- Pauses scheduled executions for the duration of Supreme Court review.
- Allows last-minute intellectual-disability claims to be raised before the Court.
- Could disrupt state death-penalty procedures and cause delays.
Summary
Background
Two Texas men, Curtis Moore and Brian Edward Davis, were convicted and sentenced to death after violent murders. Years of trials, appeals, and habeas petitions in Texas and federal courts had failed. On the day before or the day of their scheduled executions each man filed new state habeas petitions alleging that executing the mentally retarded would violate the Eighth Amendment; Texas courts dismissed those late petitions as an abuse of the writ. Each then asked the Supreme Court for a stay of execution while the Court considered petitions for review, and the Court granted temporary stays pending disposition of those petitions.
Reasoning
The central question was whether to pause the executions while the Supreme Court considers review. Justice Scalia’s dissent explains the test for a stay: a reasonable chance four Justices will grant review, a significant possibility the Court would reverse, and a likelihood of irreparable harm without a stay. He argues Texas law barred these successive claims under Art. 11.071 §5 and that the state rulings rested on adequate and independent state grounds. Scalia notes the inmates’ evidence was the same material their lawyers had earlier declined to present (old IQ tests and other evaluations), and in one case a trial psychologist testified the defendant was not mentally retarded, so Scalia says the stay factors were not met.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is that two scheduled executions were paused while the Supreme Court considers review. The stays are temporary and will end automatically if the Court denies review or when the Court’s mandate issues if review is granted. The orders also mean last-minute claims of intellectual disability can trigger temporary interruptions of executions, which the dissent warns may disrupt state death-penalty administration.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas, dissented from the Court’s grant of the stays, calling the action unprecedented and arguing it improperly short-circuited state procedural rules and invited meritless last-minute filings.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?