Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Rivers v. Guerrero

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Rivers v. Guerrero
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: March 31, 2025
Decided: June 12, 2025
Outcome
affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Ketanji Brown Jackson • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
This article is about the court case previously known as Rivers v. Lumpkin. It became Rivers v. Guerrero following Eric Guerrero's appointment as Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in the Correctional Institutions Division.

Rivers v. Guerrero is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 12, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued on March 31, 2025.

The Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that a second-in-time application, submitted after a court has already made a decision, should be qualified as a "second or successive" request (as defined in 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)). Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the majority opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether § 2244(b)(2) applies (i) only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, (ii) to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or (iii) to some second-in-time filings, depending on a prisoner's success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test."[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Danny Richard Rivers
      • Legal counsel: Peter Andrew Bruland (Sidley Austin LLP)
    • Respondent: Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
      • Legal counsel: Aaron Lloyd Nielson (Office of the Texas Attorney General), Lori Denise Brodbeck (Texas Office of the Attorney General), Lanora Christine Pettit (Office of the Texas Attorney General), Jennifer Wissinger (Office of the Texas Attorney General)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez:

    “

    In 2012, Danny Rivers was convicted in Texas state court of multiple charges related to sexual abuse of a child and possession of child pornography. He filed his first federal habeas petition in August 2017 challenging these convictions, which was denied by the district court in September 2018. While his appeal of that denial was pending, Rivers filed a second habeas petition in February 2021 raising new claims after obtaining his attorney-client file through a state bar grievance in October 2019. The district court deemed this second petition “successive” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) and transferred it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for authorization, but Rivers failed to file the required motion for authorization. After the Fifth Circuit ultimately affirmed the denial of his first petition in May 2022, Rivers appealed the transfer order of his second petition, arguing that it should have been treated as a motion to amend his first petition rather than as a successive petition since his first petition was still pending when he filed the second one.

    The Fifth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Rivers’s second-in-time petition for lack of jurisdiction.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 12, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
    • March 31, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • December 6, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • June 24, 2024: Danny Richard Rivers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • April 15, 2024: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas’s dismissal of what the district and court of appeals considered to be Rivers’ second petition.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether § 2244(b)(2) applies (i) only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has

    exhausted appellate review of his first petition, (ii) to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or (iii) to some second-in-time filings, depending on a prisoner's success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.[4]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]



    Outcome

    The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that a second-in-time application, submitted after a court has already made a decision, should be qualified as a "second or successive" request (as defined in 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)). Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the majority opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the opinion of the court, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “ This case presents the question of how to classify a second-in-time habeas filing when the judgment denying the first application is under review on appeal. Does that second habeas-related submission qualify as a second or successive application, thereby triggering §2244(b)’s stringent gatekeeping requirements?

    We hold that, in general, once the district court has entered its judgment with respect to the first habeas petition, a second-in-time application qualifies as “second or successive” and is thus properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).[4]

    		”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "DANNY RICHARD RIVERS, PETITIONER v. ERIC GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION," June 12, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "U.S. Supreme Court", "23-1345 RIVERS V. LUMPKIN," December 6, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 23-1345, "DANNY RICHARD RIVERS, V. BOBBY LUMPKIN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION," December 6, 2024
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 31, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 31, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rivers_v._Guerrero&oldid=10412456"