Bowe v. United States · ¶162

First, the majority observes that § 2244(a) specifically references “section 2255,” the provision governing federal prisoners' collateral attacks, while § 2244(b)(1) contains no such reference. Because “we presume differences in language . . . convey differences in meaning,” the majority submits, it must follow that § 2244(b)(1)'s bar on do-over claims “applies only to state prisoners.” Ante, at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted). But that cannot be right. Section 2244 mentions “section 2255” only one time, in § 2244(a). If its absence elsewhere mattered, then none of the rules in §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) through (D) would apply to federal prisoners. Yet not even the majority or Mr. Bowe thinks that. To the contrary, both concede that the whole point of § 2255(h)'s cross-reference to § 2244 is to ensure federal prisoners, just like their state counterparts, must follow each of those…

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