Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Stacy Williams, on Behalf of Her Minor Grandson, J. J. v. Andrew Williams, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 23-20375 · judgment February 27, 2024


Certiorari denied · October 7, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Fifth Circuit decision below, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and counsel who has filed here before.

Question presented

The legal doctrine of “state-created danger” has its origin in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Soc. Services. 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989). Since DeShaney, ten federal circuits—but not the Fifth Circuit—have recognized the doctrine of “statecreated danger.” See Irish v. Fowler, 979 F.3d 65, 73-75 (1st Cir. 2020) (adopting the doctrine and collecting cases from the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits that reach the same result). Since 1996, the Fifth Circuit has been asked—almost annually— to recognize or reject “state-created-danger” as a valid legal doctrine; yet the court refuses to adopt or reject the doctrine. Fisher v. Moore, 73 F.4th 367, 375 (5th Cir. 2023) (Higginson, J., dissenting). (“Our indecision is a disservice . . . if this circuit is inclined to disagree with all others, then our delay is blocking percolation, which allows a period of exploratory consideration and experimentation by lower courts before the Supreme Court ends the process with a nationally binding rule.’”). (internal quotations removed). The question presented is: Whether the Court should end the Fifth Circuit’s decades-long refusal to rule on the viability of the “statecreated-danger” doctrine by recognizing the doctrine and providing parameters for it.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Niles Stefan Illich
Palmer Perlstein

For respondent
Robert William Higgason
City of Houston Legal Department

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
23A1108

Proceedings

  1. Oct 07 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jul 24 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
  3. Jul 22 2024
    Waiver of right of respondent Andrew Williams, et al. to respond filed.
  4. Jul 02 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 7, 2024)
  5. Jun 13 2024
    Application (23A1108) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 2, 2024.
  6. Jun 07 2024
    Application (23A1108) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 17, 2024 to July 2, 2024, submitted to Justice Alito.