Capital Case. Jamaal Howard is scheduled to be executed by the State of Texas after 6:00 p.m. central time on Wednesday, October 7, 2026.

A state prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive habeas application must first obtain authorization from a court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The court of appeals “‘may authorize the filing” of the application “only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.” § 2244(b)(3)(C) (emphasis added). The one-year statute of limitations is not in that subsection. It is in a different one. § 2244(d).

The question presented 1s:

Whether a court of appeals, ruling on a motion for authorization under

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), may deny authorization on the ground that

the proposed application is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

i

Katherine M. Vickers, a 100% service-connected disabled veteran, died in 2018 after a large, inoperable brain tumor went undiagnosed for more than 10 years while she received her care at the Charles George VA Medical Center in Asheville, North Carolina, where her two requests for neurology consults were denied. The district court held that the Estate’s FTCA suit was untimely but, aware that related litigation was pending in another court, wrote “the Court will nonetheless proceed to address the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims in the interest of assisting those who may hereafter need to review this record.” The court of appeals held that her non-guardian agent’s statement could be attributed to her for purposes of accrual under Kubrick. It also assumed without deciding the claims were timely under the continuous care doctrine, and proceeded to review the district court’s non-decisional observations for clear error and affirmed them as cognizable merits findings.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether, under United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979), the FTCA claim of a claimant — whose physician determined she lacked mental capacity after the injury was discovered, and who had never been adjudicated incompetent — accrues upon a statement of her agent, who was not a court-appointed guardian and bore no legal duty under state law to act on the claim.

2. Whether, under Anderson yv. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985), clear-error deference extends to a district court’s factual observations that were not offered as grounds for the judgment.

1

Question 1: Whether the Second Amendment permits an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(¢g)(1) when that challenge is premised on the non-violent and non-dangerous nature of the defendant’s prior convictions.

Question 2: If as-applied challenges can succeed, what is the standard by which courts should evaluate a person’s prior convictions to determine if those convictions allow Congress to disarm that person under penalty of imprisonment?

1