Bowe v. United States · ¶72
Recognizing the problem with this position, amicus and the dissent attempt to limit the scope of “requirements of this subsection” in §2244(B)(3)(C) to capture only those content requirements in §§2244(b)(1) and (b)(2) that do not conflict with §2255(h). In their view, Congress intended for the substantive gatekeeping requirements in §2244(b) to apply to federal prisoners by default, unless they deviated from those requirements in §2255(h). To amicus, the new-facts exception illustrates this approach. This argument, however, is undercut by the fact that in §2244(b)(2)(A) and §2255(h)(2), Congress repeated verbatim the standard for when a second or successive filing can proceed based on a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law. If §2244(b)(2)(A) already provided the default rule, there would have been no need for Congress to repeat it in §2255(h)(2), rendering its inclusion mere…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.