Bowe v. United States · ¶84
I agree with the Court that, under our precedents, Congress was required to say more if it wanted 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) to strip our jurisdiction over federal prisoners' requests for review of panel-certification decisions. See ante, at 27. I likewise agree with the Court's conclusion that § 2244(b)(1)'s bar on do-over claims in second or successive applications applies only to state prisoners. See ante, at 36–37. I write separately to offer my view of what Congress likely sought to accomplish with § 2244(b)(3)(E): insulating a three-judge panel's properly made (even if erroneous) gatekeeping determination from further review. The provision's language, our decision in Castro v. United States, 540 U. S. 375, 381 (2003), and the broader statute's detailed gatekeeping scheme all support this interpretation. Because the three-judge panel here did not deny Bowe's petition pursuant to…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.