The question
Whether this Court may review a federal prisoner's request to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion, and whether Section 2244(b)(1)'s old-claim bar applies to such motions.
Bowe v. United States
What the Court decided
Vacated and remanded. The Court held that it has jurisdiction to review a federal prisoner's request to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion because Section 2244(b)(3)(E)'s certiorari bar does not apply to federal prisoners. The Court further held that Section 2244(b)(1)'s bar on claims already presented in a prior application does not apply to federal prisoners' successive Section 2255 motions. Both provisions by their terms govern state prisoners' habeas applications, and Section 2255(h)'s cross-reference incorporates only Section 2244's certification procedures, not those provisions. The Court left it to the Eleventh Circuit to decide in the first instance whether Bowe should receive authorization under the correct standard.
How the justices split
5-4The Court's opinion
Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson
The Court held that Section 2244(b)(3)(E)'s certiorari bar does not reach federal prisoners because it sits within Section 2244, which governs state prisoners, and speaks only to a second or successive application, while federal prisoners file motions. Section 2255(h)'s cross-reference to Section 2244 does not provide the clear indication needed to strip the Court of its certiorari jurisdiction, following Castro v. United States. The cross-reference incorporates only Section 2244's procedures for how a panel certifies a filing, not Section 2244(b)(1)'s old-claim bar, which by its terms applies only to state prisoners filing under Section 2254. The Court left to the Eleventh Circuit whether Bowe should receive authorization under the correct standard.
Concurring
Jackson, writing alone
Justice Jackson joined the opinion of the Court and filed a separate concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state the grounds of the concurrence beyond noting that it was filed.
Dissenting
Gorsuch, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett
Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas and Alito joined in full, and Barrett joined as to Part I only. The syllabus does not state the reasoning of the dissent beyond noting that it was filed and its joiners.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that Section 2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court's review of a federal prisoner's request to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held that Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under Section 2255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences.
Source: syllabus, Held
The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit was vacated and remanded, leaving it to that court to determine in the first instance whether Bowe should receive authorization under the correct standard.
Source: syllabus, Held
Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion joined by Thomas and Alito, and joined by Barrett as to Part I; Jackson filed a concurring opinion.
Source: syllabus, lineup