Moore v. Texas

Background

Curtis Moore and Brian Edward Davis are convicted Texas inmates scheduled for execution who filed last-minute claims that executing the mentally disabled would violate the Eighth Amendment. Both had earlier trials, appeals, and state and federal habeas proceedings; successive state habeas petitions raising mental-disability claims were dismissed as an abuse of the writ under Texas law. Each filed a new petition on or just before the scheduled execution date and sought stays while the Supreme Court considered review in connection with Atkins v. Virginia.

Reasoning

The Court granted temporary stays of execution, pausing the executions while the petitions for Supreme Court review proceed. Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that stays should be granted only when there is a reasonable chance the Court will take the case, a significant chance it will reverse, and a likelihood of irreparable harm. He emphasized that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the petitions on adequate and independent state-law grounds and that the inmates had not shown cause for their late claims or a colorable showing of mental retardation.

Real world impact

The effect is an immediate pause in the executions of Moore and Davis while national review of the mental-disability issue moves forward. The orders allow the Court to consider whether Atkins or related holdings require relief for these inmates. The dissent warns that such last-minute stays can disrupt state death-penalty procedures and may invite similar late filings in other cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas) argued the stays were unprecedented and unjustified because state procedural bars were adequate and the factual claims were not newly supported.