We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SCOTUS GUTS § 2244 LIMITATIONS ON SUCCESSIVE § 2255 MOTIONS

For federal prisoners, the only workable means of challenging an unlawful conviction or sentence after direct appeal rights have lapsed is through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Such a petition is brought through a mechanism provided by 28 USC § 2255.

The procedure is restricted as to timing and frequency: generally, the motion must be filed within a year of the end of direct appeal rights. What’s more, it is a one-to-a-customer filing: to bring a “second or successive” § 2255 motion, the prisoner must get advance approval from the Court of Appeals, and the new filing must fit within very narrow restrictions described in 28 USC § 2255(h).

Congress adopted the restrictions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act some 30 years ago. I have railed about the AEDPA often enough, so here I will just mention that constitutional abomination in passing.

Back in 2008, Michael Bowe was convicted of conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a gun during the offenses in violation of 18 USC § 924. In 2016, after the Supreme Court invalidated the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act, Mike filed a § 2255 motion arguing that § 924(c)’s residual clause was unconstitutional as well. The District Court denied the motion, reasoning that – regardless of the residual clause’s constitutionality – he was not entitled to a second bite of the apple because attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a “crime of violence” under the elements clause of the statute.

In 2019, after United States v. Davis held that conspiracy to commit a violent crime was not itself a violent crime, Mike sought permission from the 11th Circuit under § 2255(h) to file a second or successive motion raising whether his § 924(c) conviction should be thrown out. A three-judge panel found that while Davis announced a new, retroactive constitutional rule (one of the two statutory gateways for successive motions under § 2255(h)(2)), Mike could not show that his § 924(c) conviction was unconstitutional because Circuit precedent still treated attempted Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of violence under the elements clause.

After United States v. Taylor held in 2022 that attempted Hobbs Act was not a crime of violence either, Mike once again asked the 11^th Circuit for authorization under § 2255(h), arguing that Davis and Taylor left neither of his Hobbs Act convictions as a valid predicate for a § 924(c) charge. The Circuit dismissed the part of his request resting on Davis, reasoning that the claim had been “presented in a prior application” and that the panel lacked jurisdiction over such old claims under 28 USC § 2244(b)(1). That statute on its face applies to state prisoners seeking leave to file a second 28 USC § 2254 petition in federal court, not federal prisoners proceeding under § 2255. Nevertheless, language in § 2255(h) has led courts to ambiguously apply § 2244(b)(1) to federal § 2255 movants as well.

The Circuit panel also denied the part of Mike’s request that rested on Taylor because Taylor did not announce a new constitutional rule within the meaning of § 2255(h)(2).

Mike didn’t give up, going back to the 11^th several times, seeking authorization to pursue a § 2255 motion, asking for an en banc hearing, and seeking reversal of Circuit precedent applying § 2244(b)(1)’s old-claim bar to federal prisoners’ successive § 2255 motions. He also requested certification of the question whether § 2244(b)(1) applied to federal prisoners at all. But the 11^th turned down all of his entreaties.

Mike eventually filed for a Supreme Court review, pointing out that while six Circuits apply § 2244(b)(1)’s old-claim bar to federal prisoners, three others held that it only applied to state prisoners seeking leave to file a second § 2254 petition in federal court.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled for Mike.

First, the Justices held 5-4 that while 28 USC § 2244 provides that a denial of authorization “to file a second or successive application” shall not be subject to Supreme Court review, that provision does not apply to federal prisoners. The Supremes reasoned that the limitation is housed within § 2244, “which imposes several strict requirements that apply only to state prisoners.” What’s more, § 2244(b)(3)(E) addresses only “second or successive application’ but “unlike state prisoners who file such ‘applications,’ federal prisoners file ‘motions’.”

The Supreme Court also ruled that § 2244(b)(1)’s “old-claim” bar – that states that “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under § 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed” – applies only to state prisoners alone: “That specific reference to § 2254 was deliberate: Elsewhere in this very section, Congress expressly distinguishes § 2254 “applications” from § 2255 “motions… When interpreting statutes, the Court presumes that “differences in language like this convey differences in meaning.” By its plain terms, § 2244(b)(1)’s old-claim bar applies only to state prisoners.”

In the Bowe decision, SCOTUS resoundingly underscores that “the best textual reading of both § 2255(h) and § 2244(b) is that, when a federal prisoner moves for authorization [to file a successive § 2255], a panel can authorize the filing if the filing makes a prima facie showing that it satisfies one of the two grounds in § 2255(h), the ‘two—and only two—conditions in which a second or successive § 2255 motion may proceed’,” quoting Jones v. Hendrix.

Bowe v. United States, Case No. 24-5438, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 9, 2026)

United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019)

United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022)

Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023)

~ Thomas L. Root