The Supreme Court will begin its 2025-26 term on Monday with the justices hearing a case over whether blocking a lawyer from speaking with his client about that client’s testimony during overnight recess of the court is unconstitutional.

The case of Villarreal v. Texas centers on whether a trial court abridged David Villarreal’s 6th Amendment rights when it barred him from discussing his testimony with his attorney during an overnight recess of the court, which occurred in the middle of him testifying in his trial on murder charges. Villarreal, in appealing his murder conviction, argued his 6th Amendment right to “assistance of counsel” was violated.

Recommended Stories

• Colorado's 'conversion therapy' law will 'trans the gay away'
• Supreme Court again allows Trump administration to end TPS for Venezuelans for now
• Supreme Court takes up challenge to Hawaii handgun restrictions

Villarreal’s lawyers point to two previous Supreme Court rulings, 1976’s Geders v. United States and 1989’s Perry v. Leeke, as evidence that the lower Texas courts had erred in siding with the trial court’s rule. In Geders, the high court ruled that not allowing a person on the witness stand to speak with his attorney, at all, during an overnight break was unconstitutional, while in Perry, the justices found the Geders rule applied for a 15-minute afternoon recess while a person was still on the witness stand.

“The rule adopted below is also unworkable in practice. It will be impossible to administer, because there is no way to distinguish discussions of testimony, which the decision below prohibited, from discussions of trial strategy, which the decision below allowed. The ambiguity of this distinction will chill the advocacy of defense attorneys, who risk being held in contempt for crossing an indiscernible line,” Villarreal’s lawyers said in their brief to the Supreme Court.

“The decision below also destroys the attorney-client privilege, because the only way a trial court could enforce it would be to pry into privileged conversations between defendants and their lawyers,” the brief continued.

The state of Texas rejects Villarreal’s argument that the rule placed by the trial judge was “unworkable” and unconstitutional, arguing it only limited discussion, which would be similar to coaching a client while he is testifying on the bench in court.

“Throughout the trial, petitioner had access to counsel, including during the overnight break in
question. The trial court merely instructed counsel not to manage petitioner’s testimony during that break. Such qualified conferral orders are in keeping with this Court’s precedents, workable, and compatible with the Sixth Amendment’s original meaning,” Texas argues in its brief.

“To the extent such orders are thought to pose a problem, courts and legislatures should be trusted to
chart the best path forward,” the brief continued.

The Justice Department offered its own friend-of-the-court brief supporting Texas, where it argued the trial court did not abridge the 6th Amendment rights of Villarreal, and argued the high court should uphold the lower Texas court’s rulings finding Villarreal’s rights were not violated with the order from the judge.

“The decision whether to issue such an order should be up to the sound discretion of a particular judge, or judicial system; it is not a procedure as to which the Constitution imposes a one-size-fits-all blanket prohibition. Petitioner’s efforts to show otherwise lack textual, historical, or precedential footing, and simply seek to embed petitioner’s misguided policy preferences into the Constitution. There is no cause to do so, and the decision below should be affirmed,” the DOJ said in its brief.

While not one of the most discussed cases the Supreme Court will hear this term, the ruling is expected to have wide implications for how judges can rule on lawyer-client discussions when testimony stretches over multiple days.

The high court agreed to take up the case in April, later scheduling it as the first case to be heard in the 2025-26 term. Later this week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in high-profile cases involving the First Amendment and election law litigation.

SUPREME COURT TAKES UP CHALLENGE TO HAWAII HANDGUN RESTRICTIONS

On Tuesday, the justices will hear Chiles v. Salazar, where a licensed counselor in Colorado has argued the state’s law banning so-called “conversion therapy” restricts her Free Speech rights by not allowing her to dissuade children from changing their gender identity or sexual orientation – only allowing affirmation. On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments over whether a federal candidate has legal standing to sue over state election laws that oversee his election.

The Supreme Court’s term begins Monday with arguments in Villarreal v. Texas, and will conclude when final opinions are expected to be released in late June 2026.