Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Friday announced a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, affirming a critical legal principle that will keep convicted child sexual abuser Danny Rivers behind bars.
The Court’s ruling prevents dangerous criminals from exploiting procedural loopholes to evade justice.
“In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court sided with Texas and ensured that dangerous convicted criminals will not be able to use procedural games to escape justice,” said Attorney General Paxton. “This is a great win for Texas and the rest of America because it makes it harder for prisoners to weaponize federal courts to attack their state convictions. Rivers was convicted of unbelievably heinous sexual abuse of his own children, and he will face the consequences of his actions.”
READ: AOC Ignites NYC Mayoral Race: “Gerontocracy” vs. New Generation Showdown
Danny Rivers, whose own lawyers have stated he admitted to sexually abusing his two daughters for years, had sought release through an application for habeas corpus in federal court, claiming he was “wrongly convicted” of sexual abuse, indecency with a child, and possession of child pornography. However, Rivers had previously filed an unsuccessful habeas petition years earlier.
Rivers attempted to circumvent the consequences of that earlier denial by arguing it should not count because his appeal had not yet concluded. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument, emphasizing that “Congress chose to promote finality” and that Rivers’ “policy arguments do not move the needle in our analysis.”
The case, Rivers v. Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, centered on the interpretation of “second or successive habeas corpus application” under 28 U.S.C. §2244(b). Rivers filed a second federal habeas petition while his appeal of the denial of his first petition was still pending. The District Court classified this as a “second or successive” application and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit for authorization, which the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The Court held that “once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first-filed habeas petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a ‘second or successive application’ properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).”
The Court clarified that the existence of a final judgment on the first petition, rather than the status of any ongoing appeal, is the determining factor for whether a subsequent filing is considered “second or successive.” This interpretation aligns with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)’s aim to “conserve judicial resources, reduce piecemeal litigation, and lend finality to state court judgments within a reasonable time.”
The ruling reinforces the principle that incarcerated individuals are generally afforded one opportunity to litigate the merits of their post-conviction claims in federal court, and subsequent attempts to challenge their detention face strict procedural barriers.
READ :Texas Sen. Cruz Warns Of “Judicial Lawfare” As Nationwide Injunctions Proliferate
Attorney General Paxton’s office successfully argued that allowing prisoners to file new habeas applications during the pendency of an appeal would lead to prolonged litigation and undermine the finality of state court judgments. Today’s decision ensures that individuals like Rivers, convicted of egregious crimes, cannot endlessly challenge their convictions through serial federal petitions.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
