Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Bowe v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 12:08, 13 January 2026 by Myj Saintyl (contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Bowe v. United States
Term: 2025
Important Dates
Argued: October 14, 2025
Decided: January 9, 2026
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Amy Coney Barrett (in part)

Bowe v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 9, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 14, 2025.

In a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court held that the has jurisdiction to consider Bowe’s application because §2244(b)(3)(E) does not prevent the Eleventh Circuit’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file successive §2255 motions.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned 1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), which requires circuit and district judges to dismiss repeat writs of habeas corpus, applies to motions to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

    2. Whether the Court has certiorari jurisdiction to review the approval or denial of permissions given to federal prisoners allowing them to submit repeat challenges to their sentences. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

  • The questions presented: 1. "Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [...] Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition... for a writ of certiorari.”

    2. "Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255."[2]

  • The outcome: In a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. [1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Michael Bowe
      • Legal counsel: Andrew Lee Adler (Federal Public Defender's Office)
    • Respondent: United States

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez

    “

    In 2008, Michael Bowe was charged with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a firearm during a crime of violence. He pleaded guilty in 2009 and received a 288-month sentence, which included a mandatory consecutive 120-month term for the firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Starting in 2016, Bowe made multiple attempts to challenge his § 924(c) conviction through a series of motions and applications, arguing that changes in Supreme Court precedent (particularly Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis) meant that his underlying crimes no longer qualified as “crimes of violence” that could support the firearm conviction.

    The district court initially denied Bowe’s first § 2255 motion in 2016, finding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery still qualified as a crime of violence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit then denied several subsequent applications from Bowe to file additional challenges, ultimately concluding in that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his latest application because he was attempting to raise the same claim he had already presented in previous applications.[5]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ The first question presented is:

    Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

    Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari.” (emphasis added).

    The second question presented is:

    Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [5]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court held that the has jurisdiction to consider Bowe’s application because §2244(b)(3)(E) does not prevent the Eleventh Circuit’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file successive §2255 motions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    This case presents two questions regarding which aspects of §2244 fall within the scope of §2255(h)’s cross-reference. The first is whether §2244(b)(3)(E), which prohibits the “denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application” from being the “subject of a petition for . . . a writ of certiorari,” bars this Court’s review of authorization decisions concerning the motions of federal prisoners. If it does, this Court would lack jurisdiction to hear this case. The Court holds that it does not. In the narrow cross-reference to the procedures in §2244, Congress has not clearly indicated that it intended to incorporate §2244(b)(3)(E)’s certiorari bar.

    The second question is whether §2244(b)(1), which directs courts to dismiss a claim “presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application,” applies to motions filed by federal prisoners. It does not: Section 2244(b)(1), by its express terms, applies only to state prisoners’ habeas applications under §2254, not to federal prisoners’ motions under §2255. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Brown Jackson wrote:[1]

    “

    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 10. 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 20–21. 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 the statutorily prescribed procedures, I think it did not make the sort of determination Congress intended to insulate.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined in full by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “

    The majority today commits two serious mistakes. First, in its zeal to resolve a circuit split, the majority asserts jurisdiction where we have none. With statutory text and 30 years of case law in this Court and lower courts aligned against it, the majority bases its claim of jurisdiction on a new and curiously contoured clear-statement rule that is as needless as it is unprecedented. Second, and compounding its jurisdictional overreach, the majority adopts an implausible view on the merits. AEDPA didn’t suddenly free federal prisoners from pre-existing restrictions on do-over claims. Just the opposite: It imposed additional “carefully crafted limits” on collateral attacks by federal and state prisoners alike. Jones, 599 U. S., at 482. And, quite unsurprisingly, one of those limits includes an unmistakable and absolute bar on do-over claims. Because neither of the majority’s innovations are compatible with Congress’s directions in AEDPA, I respectfully dissent.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of the United States, "BOWE v. UNITED STATES ," January 9, 2026
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-5438 BOWE V. UNITED STATES QP", January 17, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-5438," accessed February 5, 2025
    4. ↑ Note: At the time that the Court accepted this case's writ of certiorari, legal counsel was provided by then-U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar. Prelogar stepped down from her position on January 20, 2025, following the swearing-in of President Donald Trump (R) to his second term. After taking office, Trump appointed Sarah M. Harris to serve as the acting U.S. Solicitor General until her successor is confirmed and sworn in.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 14, 2025
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 14, 2025
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Bowe_v._United_States&oldid=11023086"