Bowe v. United States

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 17 Jan 2025

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” (emphasis added). The first question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari.” (emphasis added). The second question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved Michael S. Bowe’s effort to get permission to file another postconviction challenge to his federal sentence after later Supreme Court decisions cast doubt on his §924(c) conviction. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, held that it had jurisdiction to review the Eleventh Circuit’s denial of authorization because the AEDPA certiorari bar in §2244(b)(3)(E) does not clearly apply to federal prisoners’ §2255 motions. The Court also held that §2244(b)(1), which bars repeat claims in second or successive habeas applications under §2254, does not apply to federal prisoners proceeding under §2255(h). The Court reasoned that the statute treats state and federal prisoners differently and that Congress did not clearly incorporate the certiorari bar or the old-claim bar for federal prisoners. The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for the Eleventh Circuit to decide whether Bowe may proceed under the correct standard.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, and by Justice Barrett as to Part I. The dissent argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because §2255(h)’s cross-reference to §2244 incorporates §2244(b)(3)(E)’s bar on certiorari review. It said the majority invented an unwarranted clear-statement rule and that existing cases, especially Castro, show the certiorari bar applies to federal prisoners too. On the merits, the dissent also said §2244(b)(1) should bar Bowe’s repeat claim, because AEDPA treats federal and state prisoners alike for this purpose and the Eleventh Circuit correctly denied authorization.