Bowe v. United States · ¶80

Some courts, including the Eleventh Circuit below, have relied on this policy justification and others like it in applying § 2244(b)(1) to bar second or successive motions fled by federal prisoners under § 2255(h). See, e. g., In re Baptiste, 828 F. 3d 1337, 1339 (2016) (“[I]t would be odd indeed if Congress had intended to allow federal prisoners to refle precisely the same non-meritorious motions over and over again while denying that right to state prisoners”). Those courts erred: “[P]urposive argument simply cannot overcome the force of the plain text.” Mohamad, 566 U. S., at 460. Any concern associated with Congress allowing old-claim repeat litigation for federal prisoners, moreover, is overstated: All claims, even the repeat ones, must meet the “strictly limited” threshold requirements of § 2255(h), Jones, 599 U. S., at 476, and should they survive that review, they must still…

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