Bowe v. United States · ¶38

As relevant here, the Court stressed a fatal flaw with the Government’s argument. As it explained, “reading the statute as the Government suggest[ed]” to bar jurisdiction in that case “would close our doors to a class of habeas petitioners seeking review without any clear indication that such was Congress’ intent.” Id., at 381; cf. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U. S. 77, 83–84 (2010) (declining to read “silence or ambiguous language as modifying or limiting [the Court’s] pre-existing [certiorari] jurisdiction”). That conclusion was also “difficult to reconcile with the basic principle that ‘we read limitations on our jurisdiction to review narrowly.’” Castro, 540 U. S., at 381 (quoting Utah v. Evans, 536 U. S. 452, 463 (2002)).

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