Bowe v. United States · ¶74
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 confict 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…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.