Copy Link Share Comment

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

On Friday, the Supreme Court decided Bowe v. United States, a procedural case that will meaningfully reshape how federal prisoners challenge unlawful convictions and sentences. The court held that a key restriction Congress imposed on state habeas petitions does not apply to federal prisoners, and that federal prisoners may seek Supreme Court review when courts of appeals deny permission to file successive post-conviction motions. Together, the pair of holdings loosens a set of procedural choke points that have blocked many federal habeas claims from merits review even when the underlying law has shifted decisively in a prisoner’s favor. In practice, it means more prisoners will have the opportunity to secure post-conviction relief when new law is established that supports their claims, even after previously failed appeal bids.

The case emerged from Michael Bowe’s mandatory 10-year added sentence—on top of an initial 14-year sentence—under a federal firearms statute that applies only when a defendant commits a qualifying “crime of violence.” His predicate offenses were conspiracy and attempted Hobbs Act robbery. After Bowe was sentenced, the Supreme Court dismantled the legal basis for treating those crimes as violent. In 2019, the court followed with United States v. Davis, which struck down part of the “crimes of violence” statute as unconstitutionally vague. In 2022, the court followed with United States v. Taylor, holding that attempted robbery, as defined in the Hobbs Act, does not qualify under the remaining part........

© Slate