U.S. Supreme Court News | Bowe v. United States

On January 9, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case which may open the door to specific federal prisoners. [1] Specifically, the Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed by federal prisoners challenging their convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

          As with most habeas corpus issues, it gets technical fast. Bowe had filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, [2] and was denied. Later, Bowe argued that changes in the law undermined confidence in his judgment and sentence and sought permission to file a second or successive 2255 petition. The appeals court denied Bowe’s request and found that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), [3] which states that a

“claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.”

           The distinction between 2254 [4] and 2255 proved to be important. Notably, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 governs habeas corpus actions filed in federal court by state prisoners, while 28 U.S.C. § 2255 governs habeas corpus motions filed in federal court by federal prisoners. Justice Sotomayor writing for the majority of Justices Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson found that the bar under 2244(b)(1) did not apply to second or successive 2255 petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) which authorizes the filing of second or successive petitions where the petitioner provides

“(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or” relied on

“(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.”

          I am always grateful for any opinion which opens the door a little wider for relief. If you or someone you love is in need of postconviction representation, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

Citations:

1.    Bowe v. United State, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 4 (2026). (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-5438_o7kq.pdf)

2.    28 U.S.C. § 2255. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255)

3.    28 U.S.C. § 2244. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2244)

4.    28 U.S.C. § 2254. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2254)