Plain-English summary
Court says §2244(b)(3)(E) doesn't bar review and §2244(b)(1) doesn't apply to certain successive §2255 motions
The Court held that 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(E) does not prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing a federal prisoner's request to file a second-or-successive §2255 motion, and that §2244(b)(1) does not automatically require dismissal of claims in second-or-successive §2255(h) motions. The case was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Why this matters
The decision clarifies that key statutory limits on repeated state habeas petitions (under §2254 and §2244) do not automatically control successive federal postconviction motions under §2255. That preserves a path for some federal prisoners to seek permission to bring new claims based on later-authorized evidence or law, and it defines the boundary between the rules governing state-court habeas and federal postconviction relief.
Who may feel it
- Federal prisoners seeking to file second-or-successive §2255 motions
- Federal defenders and criminal-defense attorneys
- U.S. courts handling postconviction relief and successive petitions
- The Department of Justice and federal prosecutors
Key questions