Bowe v. United States (24-5438)

argument 24-5438

Bowe v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 30m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central jurisdictional issue raised by B‑1 and B‑2 in the case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case twenty four

Mr. Adler 0:03

fifty four thirty eight. Boe versus United States. Mr. Adler. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, by its plain terms, 2244 B1 applies to habeas corpus applications under Section 2254. It therefore does not apply to motions to vacate under Section 2255. After all, those motions have their own separate gatekeeping requirements. Resisting this straightforward conclusion, the Court appointed a member of the Court of the United States Mikus proposes an elaborate theory that no court in the country has adopted. But the plain text, context, and structure of the statute made clear that B one does not apply to federal prisoners. This court has jurisdiction to so hold. We have offered several arguments for why twenty-two forty-four B three E does not bar review here, but the simplest one is this.

Mr. Adler 0:56

The subject of our cert petition is n was not the denial of an authorization. This argument is based on Castro and the passage on page three hundred and eighty that starts with the sentence even if for argument's sake. The Court assumed that there was a denial of an authorization because the Court of Appeals had stated that the prisoner could not satisfy the gatekeeping requirements. But this Court unanimously held that this denial was not the subject of the CERT petition because the prisoner sought review only on the antecedent question of whether he had to satisfy the gatekeeping requirements at all. There is no material distinction between that question reviewed in Castro and the question here, which is whether petitioner must satisfy the gatekeeping requirement in B one at all.

Mr. Adler 1:45

Because there is jurisdiction, the court should seize this opportunity to resolve the six three split that has evaded the court's review for the past several years and that will otherwise go unresolved. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 1:59

Uh why would Congress want to treat um federal and uh state prisoners differently?

Mr. Adler 2:06

Justice Thomas, the short answer is Federalism. We know throughout EDPA that Congress did in fact treat State and Federal prisoners differently. We cited numerous examples in the statutory text that reflects that differential treatment. And we even see that with respect to second or successive applications as well, with respect to the newly discovered evidence criteria, which we know are different. The fact is that State prisoners, when they They are in Federal Court and challenging a State judgment. The tension is high with the sovereignty of a State Court. And so that is why we see it with exhaustion. We see it with the deferential standard in 2254 D. We see it with the limitations on evidentiary hearings.

Mr. Adler 2:50

And B1 is just another example of that differential treatment.

Clarence Thomas 2:53

So what was the point what was Congress trying to accomplish with twenty two fifty five? Uh with the addition of H in twenty twenty two fifty five.

Mr. Adler 3:04

In H Congress was uh enumerating the two conditions that federal prisoners must one of two conditions that they must satisfy before they can uh bring a second or successive twenty two fifty five motions. The only other thing it did in H was incorporate the certification provisions in twenty two hundred and two forty four B three that govern how that determination is going to be made.

Clarence Thomas 3:27

As between uh federal and state, um beyond the federalism issue, uh why would those be treated differently? The prisoners, the federal prisoners and the state prisoners. They had been treated differently, but it I think the effort um by Congress was to bring them closer together. in treatment.

Mr. Adler 3:48

Uh. Your Honor, we don't agree with that. We see numerous examples in EDPA where they are treated differently, so we know uh that they are not treated the same. And beyond federalism, we know finality concerns are different. State prisoners have had multiple rounds of review by the time they get to a successive 225 uh four petition. And um and the number of state prisoners far outnumber federal prison in our system in our system. And so Congress would have been concerned