SCOTUS Oral Arguments · November 4 · 58 min

Guerrero v. Johnson

Guerrero v. Johnson, No. 25-1003 Argued on Nov 04 2026. For petitioner: William R. Peterson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.; and Emily M. Ferguson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Jeremy Schepers, Dallas, Tex. Question Presented: The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) prohibits successive habeas applications by state prisoners with only narrow exceptions, including for claims that "rel[y] on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A). Near-identical language allows federal prisoners to file a successive habeas motion that contains "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." Id. § 2255(h)(2). The courts of appeals are divided over whether claims rely on "a new rule ... that was previously unavailable" when a claim based on the rule could have been raised in an earlier federal habeas petition but would not have succeeded. The Eleventh and Fourth Circuits hold that whether a claim would have been meritorious does not affect whether the rule was previously available. In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit adhered to its view (and that of the Ninth Circuit) that a claim was previously available only if it had "some possibility of merit" based on the evidence available to the petitioner at the time of an earlier petition. The question presented is: Whether a claim relies on a "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable" when the habeas petitioner could have asserted a claim based on the rule in a prior federal habeas petition. Oral Argument Links: SCOTUS Oral Argument Page Transcript PDF Docket Links: SCOTUS Docket Page Question Presented Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.) Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.) Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.) Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.) Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.) Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.) Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.) Chapters: (00:00:00) Case Call (00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF WILLIAM R. PETERSON (00:28:36) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EMILY M. FERGUSON (00:42:45) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JEREMY SCHEPERS (00:55:47) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF WILLIAM R. PETERSON Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits: Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity. Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website. Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

0:00-58:36

Play in

transcript

No transcript — this publisher did not publish one.

show notes

Guerrero v. Johnson, No. 25-1003

Argued on Nov 04 2026.

For petitioner: William R. Peterson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.; and Emily M. Ferguson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Jeremy Schepers, Dallas, Tex.

Question Presented:

The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) prohibits successive habeas applications by state prisoners with only narrow exceptions, including for claims that "rel[y] on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A). Near-identical language allows federal prisoners to file a successive habeas motion that contains "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." Id. § 2255(h)(2). The courts of appeals are divided over whether claims rely on "a new rule ... that was previously unavailable" when a claim based on the rule could have been raised in an earlier federal habeas petition but would not have succeeded. The Eleventh and Fourth Circuits hold that whether a claim would have been meritorious does not affect whether the rule was previously available. In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit adhered to its view (and that of the Ninth Circuit) that a claim was previously available only if it had "some possibility of merit" based on the evidence available to the petitioner at the time of an earlier petition. The question presented is: Whether a claim relies on a "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable" when the habeas petitioner could have asserted a claim based on the rule in a prior federal habeas petition.

Oral Argument Links: