Supreme Court Turns Away Texas Woman’s Challenge to “Bonkers” Constitutional Violation

 ARLINGTON, Va.—Today, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Erma Wilson, who had her life turned upside down by a conviction in which her prosecutor was on the judge’s payroll. Despite the outrageous facts of the case, lower courts held Erma was not allowed to vindicate her rights in federal court without first persuading the state of Texas to overturn her decades-old conviction.

“Erma’s federal constitutional rights were violated, and she deserves to vindicate them in federal court,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili, who represents Erma. “This decision leaves the government unaccountable for an egregious miscarriage of justice.”   

A criminal proceeding involves three different parties: the defense representing the defendant, the prosecutor acting for the state, and a judge presiding over both to ensure fair and impartial justice.

But for Erma, that equation was shortened to just two. In a setup that one federal judge summarized as “utterly bonkers,” Midland County prosecutor Ralph Petty worked for the prosecutor’s office by day and then worked as a law clerk for a presiding judge in the evening. For 20 years, this double-dipping role allowed Petty to surreptitiously shape judicial thinking, draft rulings in his and his colleagues’ favor, gain access to confidential defense materials, and earn over $250,000 in the process.  

In 2022, Erma teamed up with IJ to file a federal lawsuit to hold both the county and Petty accountable for violating her constitutional right to due process. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Erma was not allowed to sue. Because her decades-old criminal conviction—for which she never served a day in prison—had never been overturned, she was not allowed to hold anyone accountable in federal court.

“The Fifth Circuit in this case ruled that the federal courthouse doors are closed to Erma unless she successfully asks state officials for permission to sue,” said IJ Deputy Director of Litigation Robert McNamara. “But federal courts exist to enforce the federal Constitution, regardless of whether state bureaucrats want them to or not.” 

The decision was met with dissent from six of the judges who wrote that the court “unjustifiably limit[s]” the “plain breadth of [Section] 1983” and leaves plaintiffs like Erma Wilson “violated but not vindicated.” Those judges held out hope that “the Supreme Court will at last confront the persistent circuit split” on this issue of constitutional accountability and “vindicate a bedrock constitutional guarantee” of fair judicial proceedings.   

“Today’s decision leaves in place a rule that prevents Erma and others like her nationwide from vindicating their rights in federal court,” said IJ President and General Counsel Scott Bullock. “But government officials are not above the law, and IJ will continue to fight to make sure the Constitution is an enforceable promise of liberty, not just an empty suggestion.” #  #  # 

To arrange interviews on this subject, journalists may call Phillip Suderman, IJ’s communications project manager, at (850) 376-4110. More information on the case is available at: https://ij.org/case/midland-prosecutor/