| Petitions and applications docketed on August 10, 2026 | |||||||
| type | Caption | Docket No | Court Below | Petitioner's Counsel | Counsel's Address | Recent Filings | QP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| paid | James Ryan Earl
v. Texas |
26-178 | Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, No. 03-23-00427-CR
Judgment: June 27, 2025 |
Lane Andrew Haygood | Haygood Law Firm 620 N. Grant Ave. Suite 913 Odessa, TX 79761 | [Main Document] [Petition] [Appendix] | Question(s) presentedQUESTION PRESENTEDTexas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) makes it a crime to “send[] repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another” when done with intent to produce any of those same effects. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that the statute does not even “implicate” the First Amendment because it regulates “non-speech conduct.” Hx parte Barton, 662 S.W.3d 876, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022); Ex parte Sanders, 663 S.W.3d 197, 215-16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022). Yet last year, the same court held the same statute unconstitutional as applied because the messages prosecuted under it were “speech.” Owens v. State, 728 S.W.3d 155, 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025). These positions are inconsistent; either the means of committing the offense as described by the statute are “speech” (and thus implicate the First Amendment) or the only conduct which can be constitutionally forbidden under the statute is the non-content, non-speech part of the offense. The question presented is thus: Whether Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7), which criminalizes repeated electronic communications sent with intent to and reasonably likely to annoy, alarm, embarrass, or offend another person, is overbroad under the First Amendment. |
| paid | Mitchell Vexler
v. Don Spencer, Chief Appraiser, Denton Central Appraisal District |
26-179 | Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, No. 02-24-00305-CV
Judgment: May 01, 2025 |
Mitchell Vexler | 1913 Justin Road Suite 117 Flower Mound, TX 75028 | NA | |
| paid | Edward Allyn Hudacko
v. Regents of the University of California |
26-180 | Ninth Circuit, No. 24-7360
Judgment: October 21, 2025 |
Gene Clayton Schaerr | Schaerr | Jaffe 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 | [Main Document] [Petition] | NA |
| ifp | David Brend
v. United States |
26-5258 | Second Circuit, No. 24-2784, 24-2977, 24-3264
Judgment: April 15, 2026 |
David Brend | #22795-018 FCI Coleman Satellite Camp P.O. Box 1027 Coleman, FL 33521 | NA | |
| ifp | Gerald Kiner
v. Shelby County, Tennessee Government |
26-5265 | Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5649
Judgment: February 17, 2026 |
Gerald Kiner | 4400 Hickory Hill Road Memphis, TN 38141 | NA | |
| ifp | Matthew Nix
v. United States |
26-5266 | Second Circuit, No. 23-7841, 23-7910
Judgment: February 25, 2026 |
Michael Joseph Witmer | The Law Office of Michael Jos. Witmer 28 East Main Street Suite 900 Rochester, NY 14614 | [Petition] | NA |
| ifp | Donald Gene Barnes
v. Shawn Gillis, Warden |
26-5267 | Eleventh Circuit, No. 25-12632
Judgment: January 23, 2026 |
Donald G. Barnes Sr. | #1129864 Wheeler Correctional Facility P.O. Box 466 Alamo, GA 30411 | NA | |
| ifp | Daewon Warren
v. United States |
26-5268 | Fourth Circuit, No. 23-6746
Judgment: February 04, 2025 |
Daewon Warren | #28563-171 P.O. Box 1000 Cumberland, MD 21501 | NA | |
| ifp | In Re Manuel Walters | 26-5269 | NA, No. —
Judgment: — |
Manuel Walters | #0808953 Southbay Correctional Rehab. P.O. Box 7171 Southbay, FL 33493 | NA | |
| ifp | Michael Stephen Combs
v. Nathan Gaughan, Warden |
26-5270 | Ninth Circuit, No. 19-99010
Judgment: March 12, 2026 |
Claudia Pamela Gómez | Office of the Federal Public Defender 321 East 2nd Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 | [Main Document] [Petition] [Appendix] | Question(s) presentedCAPITAL CASE QUESTION PRESENTED In Combs v. Broomfield, the Ninth Circuit held that the California Supreme Court could reasonably have determined that trial counsel did not render deficient performance at the penalty phase under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), when investigators abandoned the search for Combs’s biological mother after tracing her to Texas, but stopping due to time and financial constraints. Post-conviction investigation located her and obtained evidence that Combs had a family history of mental illness and suffered prenatal exposure to alcohol, amphetamines, and other drugs, resulting in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. This evidence, which was not presented to the jury, would have rebutted the prosecution’s argument that Combs was not actually mentally 11] and explained the brain damage his trial experts identified. The question presented is: Does the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflict with this Court’s decisions in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 862 (2000), Wiggins v. Smith, 5389 U.S. 510 (20038), and Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005), which require capital defense counsel to conduct a thorough investigation? 1 |
| app | Delbert Tyler Trevino
v. United States |
26A177 | Tenth Circuit, No. 24-2170
Judgment: — |
Shira Kieval | Office of the Federal Public Defender 633 17th St., Suite 1000 Denver, CO 80202 | [Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] | NA |
| app | Frank Parasmo
v. United States |
26A178 | Second Circuit, No. 23-6555
Judgment: — |
Neal Kumar Katyal | Milbank LLP 1101 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 | [Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] | NA |
| app | Food & Water Watch
v. Environmental Protection Agency |
26A179 | Ninth Circuit, No. 25-384
Judgment: — |
Michael Paul Connett | Siri & Glimstad LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 | [Main Document] | NA |