Bowe v. United States · ¶166

Fourth, the majority suggests that §2255(h)’s cross-reference to §2244 captures only the latter’s “procedures” governing “how a panel certifies a second or successive filing.” Ante, at 21. And, the argument goes, §2244(b)(1)’s bar on do-over claims is no mere “procedure” but instead a substantive rule about what a filing may “contai[n].” Ibid. This theory fails too. Section 2255’s cross-reference does not speak of a procedure/substance distinction. Instead, §2255(h) directs courts to “certif[y]” motions “as provided in” §2244. Even the majority acknowledges that this language makes §2244(b)(3)(C) applicable to federal prisoners. Ante, at 12–13. And subparagraph (C) explicitly says “the requirements of this subsection”—which include §2244(b)(1)—must be satisfied before certification. It’s more than a little telling that the majority finds itself forced both to rewrite §2255(h)’s terms…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.