The Texas Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily halted the execution of Robert Roberson, who was scheduled to be put to death that evening for the 2002 death of his two-year-old daughter. The court’s ruling comes in response to an unprecedented move by the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, which had subpoenaed Roberson to testify before it on October 21.

Roberson’s case has drawn significant attention due to its reliance on the controversial diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). If carried out, his execution would have been the first in the United States based solely on an SBS conviction.

The court order stated that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and related officials are “temporarily enjoined from impairing Mr. Roberson’s compliance with the Subpoena and Writ of Attachment issued by the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, including by executing Mr. Roberson, until further order of this Court.”

Roberson was convicted in 2003 based on medical testimony that his daughter’s symptoms — brain swelling, brain hemorrhaging, and retinal hemorrhaging — were indicative of SBS. However, in the two decades since his conviction, the scientific basis for SBS diagnoses has come under intense scrutiny.

Critics argue that the triad of symptoms used to diagnose SBS can have multiple causes, including accidental injuries and other medical conditions. In Roberson’s case, it was later revealed that his daughter had several pre-existing health issues, including two types of pneumonia, which could have contributed to her symptoms.

The case also highlights concerns about how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can impact criminal proceedings. Advocates argue that Roberson’s ASD diagnosis, which was not considered during his trial, may have led to misinterpretations of his behavior by medical staff and law enforcement.

Texas law provides a potential avenue for relief in cases involving evolving scientific theories. Article 11.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows for sentence commutation or clemency when new scientific evidence may contradict evidence relied upon for conviction.

Given the unprecedented nature of Roberson’s subpoena by lawmakers, who are not ordinarily in a position to halt executions or grant clemency, it is not yet clear how the current hold will affect Roberson’s case.