Opinion Summary: Bowe v. United States | Post-Conviction Puzzle
About this episode
Bowe v. United States | Date Decided: 1/9/26 | Case No. 24-5438
Background: 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).
Question Presented:
- 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).
- 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:
- The Court has jurisdiction because §2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file a second or successive §2255 motion.
- Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under §2255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences.
Result: Vacated and remanded
Voting Breakdown: 5-4. 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.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
- For Petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
- For Respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
- For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below as to Question 1: Kasdin M. Mitchell, Dallas, Tex.
Get every episode summarized
Each time The High Court Report publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.
The High Court Report
New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term
The High Court Report
Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law
The High Court Report