On Thursday night, the Texas Supreme Court issued an extraordinary injunction saving Robert Roberson from execution — but possibly not for very long.

Roberson was convicted of murdering his daughter in 2003 on the theory that she died of shaken baby syndrome. However, in an extraordinary turn of events, it now seems likely that Roberson is innocent. Not only that, but it is far from clear that his daughter was a murder victim in the first place.

One reason to doubt this belief is that modern science views shaken baby syndrome with increasing skepticism. More importantly, the evidence in Roberson’s case suggests that his poor girl actually died from a combination of pneumonia and drugs that should never have been prescribed to such a young patient, and that the injuries that a 2003 jury attributed to child abuse may have been caused. as a result of an operation.

Another reason why the order has arrived In the Texas House of Representatives What’s so extraordinary is that it involves a potentially unprecedented conflict between the state legislature and its governor. Texas Governor Gregg Abbott (R) has the power to place a 30-day pause on Roberson’s execution (though not to grant him permanent clemency), but has so far declined to do so , and the state planned to execute Roberson Thursday evening.

However, the day before, a bipartisan group of state lawmakers issued a subpoena requesting Roberson’s testimony before a committee of the state House of Representatives. This hearing isn’t scheduled until Monday, and Roberson clearly wouldn’t have been able to comply with this subpoena if he had been killed Thursday night.

Roberson’s case thus raises a potentially unique separation of powers issue under the Texas Constitution: Can the Texas executive branch carry out an otherwise lawful execution if doing so would prevent the legislature from hearing testimony from a witness they already has summoned?

The Texas Supreme Court order in Texas House has nothing to say about whether Roberson is innocent or not. The state Supreme Court is normally not allowed to hear criminal appeals at all; these are heard by an entirely separate court known as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which has repeatedly denied relief to Roberson. The state Supreme Court also has not ruled definitively on whether the House subpoena can stop an execution.

Instead, Judge Evan Young, in a concurring opinion, joined by two other justices, explains that he voted to temporarily halt Roberson’s execution to give the courts time to figure out what should happen in the unusual circumstance when the legislature requests testimony from a death row inmate on the eve of his execution.

“We have no clear precedent on this question,” Young wrote, which is not surprising given the highly unlikely situation that led to this case coming before his court.

Two other aspects of the case are worth mentioning. One is that this case has pitted many state Republicans against each other. While Abbott, who has yet to intervene on Roberson’s behalf, is a Republican, so are the two Texas lawmakers who introduced the resolution to subpoena Roberson. Every judge on the Texas Supreme Court is a Republican, as is every judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals, which recently voted 5-4 to deny Roberson relief.

The other aspect is that Roberson’s fate likely rests with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, which already voted once Wednesday not to recommend him clemency. If this council recommends clemency, Abbott could commute Roberson’s death sentence entirely. However, without clemency advice, Abbott can only delay the execution for 30 days.

For now, Roberson’s lawyers are trying to buy him time. At most, the legislative subpoena could prevent Texas from delaying his execution until after Monday, when his testimony is scheduled to take place. Then it will likely be up to Abbott to grant him another 30 days to convince the pardon committee to reverse its decision.

What’s striking about this case, however, is that virtually everyone involved wants Roberson to live, except for the few people in the Texas government (the Court of Criminal Appeals, the pardon board, and Abbott) who actually have the power to save people. it. One of Roberson’s advocates is Brian Wharton, the lead detective on his case, who now believes he is innocent.

Another judge is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a 10-page statement explaining that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot intervene because Roberson does not claim his rights under federal law are being violated. But while Sotomayor agreed that she is powerless because Roberson “makes no discernible federal claim,” her statement implores the state officials who could actually save Roberson’s life to do so.

“A 30-day executive order delay would provide the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles an opportunity to reconsider the evidence of Roberson’s actual innocence,” Sotomayor wrote at the end of that statement. “That could prevent a miscarriage of justice: executing a man who has provided credible evidence of actual innocence.”