Around twenty years ago, Erma Wilson, then a certified nursing assistant, was convicted of cocaine possession in Midland, Texas. Although Wilson denies the crack was hers, the felony conviction resulted in an eight-year suspended sentence, preventing her from pursuing her dream of becoming a registered nurse. Wilson’s criminal record created obstacles in finding employment and supporting her family. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a ruling barring Wilson from suing those involved in the conflict of interest that arose during her case. Despite the unjust implications, the court decided to enforce a binding 5th Circuit precedent that restricts the use of a federal statute allowing people to seek damages from state and local officials who violate their constitutional rights. Wilson’s lawsuit cannot proceed because she had served her sentence before the conflict came to light. The court’s ruling underlines the lapses that created the situation and aligns with the 5th Circuit’s interpretation of a 1994 Supreme Court case. Despite the unjust outcome for Wilson, the court stated that only the en banc court or the United States Supreme Court could deliver a different result. The court’s decision also reveals the “utterly bonkers” situation that Wilson faced due to the conflicted dual roles of Ralph Petty, the former prosecutor involved in her case. Petty had been working simultaneously as a law clerk for local judges, including the one who presided over Wilson’s case, without disclosing these dual responsibilities. It was ultimately discovered after Wilson’s sentence had been completed that Petty’s actions had created a severely unethical environment. Other defendants involved were aware of Petty’s dual role but failed to disclose this relationship to the defendants or their counsel. Petty’s actions led to significant violations of the rules of ethics for attorneys, and he was found to have engaged in professional misconduct. The discovery of Petty’s actions also led to the successful challenge of the conviction of another affected defendant. The court vacated the individual’s conviction because of the conflict of interest present in the case.