Bowe v. United States · ¶133

One might think this problem would cause the majority to hesitate. Instead, my colleagues plow on, conjuring up a clear-statement rule to support their course. Yes, the majority admits, a fair reading of § 2255(h)'s cross-reference to § 2244 “might include” § 2244(b)(3)(E)'s certiorari bar. Ante, at 35. But, my colleagues insist, Congress “must speak clearly” when it wishes to withdraw our certiorari jurisdiction, ante, at 25, and the language Congress employed here is not “clear” enough to be worth following, ante, at 28–31.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.