Bowe v. United States · ¶49

Court-appointed amicus in Hohn argued that the decision denying permission was not a “case” in the Court of Appeals for the purposes of this Court's jurisdiction under § 1254(1). The Court rejected that construction, however, in part because it would have rendered § 2244(b)(3)(E) (which the Court suggested was a requirement for “state prisoners filing second or successive habeas applications under § 2254”) as superfuous. See id., at 249. That was because all the reasons amicus gave for why a decision denying a certificate of appealability did not constitute a “case” for the purposes of § 1254(1) would equally have applied to a decision denying authorization to bring a second or successive filing. Ibid. The Court nowhere held that § 2244(b)(3)(E) applied to federal prisoners. (That is not surprising because the case did not present that question.) Nor does the Court's holding today…

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