In the case of Banister v. Davis, Gregory Dean Banister appealed his state conviction and sentence in federal court through a habeas corpus petition but was denied. He then filed what he called a "Rule 59(e)" motion to alter or amend the judge's decision, which was also rejected on grounds that it was actually an unauthorized second or successive habeas application under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The Supreme Court held that a Rule 59(e) motion should not be recharacterized as an unauthorized second or successive habeas petition. This ruling allows prisoners like Banister to use such motions for reconsideration without needing prior authorization from appellate courts. The majority opinion emphasized that this interpretation aligns with traditional rules of procedure and respects prisoner rights while still maintaining AEDPA’s goal of preventing abusive litigation.

In the dissenting opinion for Banister v. Davis, Justice Alito argued that the majority's decision would have significant implications on habeas corpus proceedings and could potentially lead to an increase in frivolous litigation. He contended that a Rule 59(e) motion should be treated as a second or successive habeas petition if it raises new claims or presents old claims in a new light, which is consistent with previous rulings of the Court. The justice also expressed concerns about potential abuse of this rule by prisoners who might use it to delay their sentences indefinitely. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on historical practices rather than statutory interpretation to reach its conclusion.