Bowe v. United States · ¶60

Finally, the Government invokes a practical concern. The Government suggests that it would make little sense to bar certiorari review of authorization decisions concerning state prisoners but not federal ones. That argument carries little weight when the governing standard requires Congress to speak clearly. It also misses the mark. Congress treated state and federal prisoners differently across AEDPA, with state prisoners often facing far higher hurdles to relief. To name a few examples: The statutory requirements for second or successive filings for federal and state prisoners are “not identical.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524, 529, n. 3 (2005); compare §§ 2244(b)(1)–(2) with §§ 2255(h)(1)–(2). Indeed, the requirements for federal prisoners are more lenient, as explained in detail below. See infra, at 37–38. Further, for state prisoners alone, Congress requires exhaustion, §§…

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