Bowe v. United States · ¶137

Perhaps the most obvious candidate would be the Constitution. Sometimes, after all, when faced with two competing statutory interpretations this Court invokes the canon of constitutional avoidance to choose the one that avoids, rather than implicates, a constitutional problem. See, e. g., Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 381–382 (2005). But the majority does not rest its clear-statement rule on that doctrine. Nor could it. This Court has already expressly rejected the notion that § 2244(b)(3)'s limitations violate the Suspension Clause or the Exceptions Clause, the two constitutional provisions most obviously relevant to cases like this one. See Felker, 518 U. S., at 661–664.

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