Bowe v. United States · ¶139

With constitutional avoidance off the table, the majority advances an unbriefed theory to prop up its novel clear- statement rule. Citing Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. 199 (2022), the majority observes that this Court generally reads statutorily prescribed procedural requirements as forfeitable claim-processing rules rather than unwavering jurisdictional mandates unless Congress “clearly” indicates otherwise. Ante, at 27. And, the majority insists, it is doing something similar here. See ante, at 27–28. Hardly. No one disputes that AEDPA's certiorari bar at issue here is jurisdictional. So Boechler not only does not “contro[l] this case,” ante, at 28, n. 5, it has nothing to say about this case at all.

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