Bowe v. United States
The Court holds that two AEDPA provisions governing successive habeas filings by state prisoners do not reach federal prisoners. Section 2244(b)(3)(E)'s bar on certiorari does not strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over a federal prisoner's request to file a second or successive motion under Section 2255, and Section 2244(b)(1)'s old-claim bar — which forbids relitigating a claim raised in a prior application — applies only to state-prisoner applications under Section 2254, not to federal-prisoner motions under Section 2255.
Case background
Petitioner Michael S. Bowe is serving a 24-year federal sentence after pleading guilty in 2008 to three offenses: conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a firearm in relation to a “crime of violence” under Section 924(c). The firearm conviction carried a mandatory 10-year sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence for the robbery offenses, and that conviction was valid only if at least one predicate offense qualified as a “crime of violence” under Section 924(c)’s elements clause or residual clause. Years after Bowe was sentenced, this Court held in United States v. Davis that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, and in United States v. Taylor that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence under the elements clause — decisions that call his Section 924(c) conviction into question.
A comprehensive statutory scheme governs when prisoners may seek postconviction relief, and under AEDPA a second or successive effort first requires a prisoner to obtain authorization from a court of appeals. Bowe repeatedly asked the Eleventh Circuit for permission to file a second or successive motion under Section 2255, but his requests were denied; among other things, a panel applied Section 2244(b)(1)’s “old-claim” bar to dismiss the portion of his request that had been raised in a prior application. Bowe sought certiorari, noting a Circuit split — six Circuits apply the old-claim bar to federal prisoners while three do not — and the Court granted review.
Questions Presented
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
Holding
First, the Court has jurisdiction. Section 2244(b)(3)(E) — which bars certiorari review of the denial of an authorization to file a second or successive “application” — does not apply to federal prisoners. It is housed within Section 2244, which imposes requirements that apply only to state prisoners, and it speaks only to “applications,” whereas federal prisoners file “motions.” Nor does Section 2255(h)’s narrow cross-reference to Section 2244 supply the clear indication needed to strip the Court of its broad certiorari jurisdiction; that cross-reference incorporates only the procedures for how a panel certifies a filing, not the certiorari bar.
Second, Section 2244(b)(1)’s old-claim bar does not apply to second or successive motions filed by federal prisoners under Section 2255(h). By its plain terms it governs claims “presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254,” and state prisoners alone file Section 2254 applications. Section 2255(h)’s cross-reference incorporates Section 2244’s procedures only as they relate to how a panel certifies a filing, not the old-claim content bar. The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is vacated and the case remanded for it to determine in the first instance whether Bowe should receive authorization under the correct standard.
The Court
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined, and in which Justice Barrett joined as to Part I.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in Bowe v. United States, written by Justice Sotomayor.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone, inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be attributed to Justice Sotomayor. The text being read is the Court’s published majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.