Bowe v. United States · ¶87

In its decision below, the Court of Appeals did not grant or deny Bowe authorization to proceed on his successive claim. Rather, it “dismissed” his proposed claim “for lack of jurisdiction.” In re Bowe, Civ. No. 24–11704 (CA11, June 27, 2024), App. 79. True, “the label attached to an order” does not erase its “practical effect.” Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. 579, 594 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also post, at 62–63, n. 4 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). But, in this case, the distinction between a denial and a dismissal is practical, not semantic.

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