Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in how it applied Ayestas v. Davis?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court in Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080 (2018) held that the Fifth Circuit’s requirement that individuals seeking funding under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) must show a “substantial need” for the services was an impermissible reading of the statute. Yet here both the district court’s order denying funding and the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of that order were contrary to virtually all the holdings of that case. The impermissible “substantial need test” was twice used by the district court in denying funding; it held that funding was not available for procedurally defaulted claims; Mamou was required to show a likelihood of success on his claims; and his extensive showing that a reasonable attorney would request the services was ignored. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit’s postAyestas opinion approved the district court’s denial of funding based on the same impermissible preAyestas standards it had previously used. Left uncorrected, the Fifth Circuit’s decision would place that Court’s rejection of Ayestas beyond review. This case is a straightforward application of Ayestas. Summary reversal is the most appropriate relief when the legitimacy of this Court’s judgments and the rule of law are threatened in this manner. It therefore presents the following question: Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in how it applied Ayestas v. Davis? -ii