Bowe v. United States

Docket Number: 24-5438
Citation: 607/1
Term: October Term 2025
Argued: October 14, 2025
Decided: January 9, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Author: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Concurring: Sonia Sotomayor, John G. Roberts, Jr., Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting: Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Amy Coney Barrett

Read the official slip opinion (PDF)

AI-Generated Summary

1. Case Information:

Case Name: Bowe v. United States (Petitioner Michael S. Bowe v. Respondent United States)
Docket Number: 24–5438
Dates: Argued October 14, 2025—Decided January 9, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (certiorari granted to resolve circuit split on application of §2244(b)(1) to federal prisoners)

2. Facts of the Case:

Petitioner Michael S. Bowe pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951(a)), attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a firearm in relation to a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A), receiving a 24-year sentence, including a mandatory consecutive 10-year term for the §924(c) offense.
Subsequent Supreme Court decisions undermined the §924(c) conviction: United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. 445 (2019) (residual clause of §924(c)(3)(B) void for vagueness); United States v. Taylor, 596 U. S. 845 (2022) (attempted Hobbs Act robbery not a crime of violence under elements clause, §924(c)(3)(A)); Eleventh Circuit precedent bars conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery under elements clause.
Procedural history: Bowe's 2016 §2255 motion denied by district court. Post-Davis, Eleventh Circuit denied §2255(h) authorization (2019). Post-Taylor, Eleventh Circuit dismissed/denied further authorization citing §2244(b)(1) (Davis claim as "old") and no new constitutional rule under §2255(h)(2). Multiple en banc and certification requests denied. Supreme Court granted certiorari on circuit split (six circuits apply §2244(b)(1) to federal prisoners; three do not).

3. Legal Issues Presented:

Whether 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(E) bars Supreme Court certiorari review of courts of appeals' denials of authorization for federal prisoners' second or successive §2255 motions (jurisdictional threshold).
Whether §2244(b)(1)'s bar on "old claims" (claims presented in a prior §2254 application) applies to federal prisoners' second or successive §2255(h) motions.
Involves statutory interpretation of AEDPA's gatekeeping provisions for postconviction relief (§§2244, 2255(h)).
Main arguments: Petitioner: §2244(b)(3)(E) and (b)(1) apply only to state prisoners (§2254 "applications"); §2255(h) cross-reference narrow (procedures only). Government: Cross-reference imports §2244(b)(3)(E) certiorari bar (no jurisdiction) and (b)(1) old-claim bar. Amicus (for Eleventh Circuit): Chain of cross-references (§2255(h) → §2244(b)(3)(C) → subsection (b) requirements) applies (b)(1).

4. The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):

Author & Type: SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court (5-4 majority: ROBERTS, C.J., and KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, JACKSON, JJ., joined).
Holding: (1) Court has jurisdiction; §2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar review of federal prisoners' §2255(h) authorization denials. (2) §2244(b)(1) does not apply to federal prisoners' second or successive §2255(h) motions.
Legal Reasoning:
Jurisdiction: Broad §1254(1) certiorari grant requires clear indication to limit (Castro v. United States, 540 U. S. 375); §2244 for state prisoners (§2254 "applications"); §2255(h) cross-reference narrow/specific ("certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel to contain" §2255(h) content); imports only panel-certification procedures (§2244(b)(3)(A)–(D)), not post-certification certiorari bar ((E)); ambiguity insufficient. Distinguishes state/federal prisoners (AEDPA treats differently; comity/federalism less for federal).
Merits: §2244(b)(1) text bars claims in "second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254" (state only); deliberate (§2244/§2253/§2266 distinguish §2254 "applications" from §2255 "motions"); §2255(h) cross-reference doesn't import content rules like (b)(1) (only certification procedures; irreconcilable with §2255(h) new-facts/new-law gateways; no surplusage). Other limits (§2255(f) SOL, (h) thresholds) curb repeats.
Disposition: Judgment vacated and remanded (Eleventh Circuit to apply correct standard for §2255(h) authorization).

5. Concurring Opinion(s):

JACKSON, J. (concurring): Joins majority; §2244(b)(3)(E) insulates only proper "grant or denial" after panel applies correct criteria/procedures (Castro); here, panel erroneously applied §2244(b)(1) (state-only) and "dismissed" for jurisdiction, not denial under §2255(h), so no bar.

6. Dissenting Opinion(s):

GORSUCH, J., dissenting (joined by THOMAS, ALITO, JJ.; BARRETT, J., joined as to Part I): (1) No jurisdiction: §2255(h) cross-reference fully imports §2244(b)(3)(A)–(E) (package for certification, including certiorari/rehearing bar; uniform lower court precedent; Castro/Hohn assume applicability; no "clear statement" needed). Alternatives: original habeas or §1254(2) certification. (2) Merits: §2244(b)(1) applies via §2255(h) → §2244(b)(3)(C) ("requirements of this subsection" includes (b)(1) do-over bar; (b)(2) displaced by specific §2255(h); text/context/history confirm no federal exceptionalism; policy against repeats).

7. Potential Significance:

Resolves circuit split on §2244(b)(1) applicability to federal prisoners, holding it inapplicable (only state); clarifies §2255(h) cross-reference scope (panel procedures only, not content bars like old claims or certiorari limits).
Enables Supreme Court certiorari review of federal §2255(h) denials (no §2244(b)(3)(E) bar absent clear import).
Facilitates federal prisoners' successive challenges (e.g., post-Davis/Taylor §924(c) claims) without old-claim dismissal at authorization stage (though §2255(h)(1)–(2)/§2255(f) still gatekeep; district courts retain merits tools).
Reinforces textualism in AEDPA (distinctions in "applications"/"motions"; narrow cross-references); distinguishes state/federal treatment (less deference/comity for federal). Remand invites Eleventh Circuit authorization under proper §2255(h) standard.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Successive Habeas Motions, Federal Postconviction Relief, AEDPA Gatekeeping