Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Chasity Congious, By and Through Her Guardian, Kimberly Hammond, on Behalf of Herself and as Mother and Next Friend of Z. C. H., Deceased v. Aaron Ivy Shaw, DO

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 25-10886 · judgment March 27, 2026


2%
estimated cert probability
(petition-stage, structural)
Rule 10: circuit split argued
At the Oct 16 conference: granted 0.21% · GVR 1.2% · relisted 95% · denied 3.4%
Granted ever, conference-stage estimate: 6.2%

Well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

This Court has held that potential violations of a pretrial detainee’s Due Process Clause rights are to be judged by an objective standard. E.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 560-61, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (stating that the constitutionality of restrictions placed on pretrial detainees “depends on whether they are rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive purpose and whether they appear excessive in relation to that purpose.”); Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 397-402, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (holding that a pretrial detainee’s excessive force claim should be judged by an objective standard). In the wake of Kingsley, a Circuit split has emerged on whether to apply an objective standard to a pretrial detainee’s Due Process Clause denial of medical care claim. The Fifth Circuit in this case applied a subjective standard to reject a pretrial detainee’s Due Process Clause denial of medical care claim. Accordingly, the question presented by this petition is: Whether a pretrial detainee’s Due Process Clause denial of medical care claim is governed by a subjective standard, as held by the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, or by an objective standard, as held by the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jarrett Maurice Adams
The Law Office of Jarrett Adams, PLLC

For respondent
Derek Carson
Cantey Hanger LLP

Case

Subject area
Due Process (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 05 2026
    Response Requested. (Due November 4, 2026)
  2. Sep 30 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2026.
  3. Jun 25 2026
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 14, 2026)