October Term 2025 · Docket 24-5438

Can the Supreme Court review a federal prisoner's second habeas petition?

The dispute centers on whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear a second or successive habeas petition from a federal prisoner.

Official caption
Bowe v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the side that brought the case's counsel argued that Section 2255(h) incorporates the certification process for second or successive applications.

    the side that brought the case's counsel stated that this incorporation prohibits review by petition for writ of certiorari.

    The government's counsel argued that Congress passed AEDPA to advance the finality of criminal convictions.

    The government's counsel noted that Congress largely eliminated post-conviction applications by federal prisoners.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of Supreme Court jurisdiction over federal prisoner habeas petitions. the side that brought the case argues the Court lacks power to review the case. The government argues the Court retains authority to decide the matter.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 14, 2025.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Supreme Court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The government wants the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction and review the petition.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that Section 2255(h) incorporates a certification process that bars Supreme Court review.

The government argues that Congress intended to preserve Supreme Court jurisdiction over these specific petitions.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if the side that brought the case's argument relies on the Castro decision.

Justice Thomas asked what Congress intended to accomplish by adding subsection (h) to Section 2255.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines whether federal prisoners can seek Supreme Court review of their second habeas petitions. This affects the finality of criminal convictions and the availability of post-conviction relief.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON