Legal review · Links checked : the source is available · Scope & methodology
This record is not a citator check. Confirm later history and treatment before relying on it.
authority type
case
jurisdiction
federal_nationwide
publication status
official_preliminary_print
precedential status
binding
decision or issuance date
2026-01-09
subsequent history
The official preliminary print supplies final United States Reports pagination; post-remand proceedings are not included in this record.
negative treatment status
Current official preliminary-print opinion checked; no subsequent negative Supreme Court treatment identified through 2026-08-24; comprehensive commercial citator not run.
material limitations
Bowe does not establish entitlement to authorization, panel rehearing, or en banc rehearing; circuit-specific post-remand and rehearing research remains required.
Section 2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar Supreme Court certiorari review of a federal prisoner's request to file a successive § 2255 motion.
Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to successive motions filed by federal prisoners under § 2255(h).
Disposition
The Court vacated and remanded. It left the Eleventh Circuit to decide authorization under the correct standard.
Material limitations
The Court distinguished § 2244(b)(3)(E)'s certiorari language from its rehearing language; it did not hold that federal prisoners have a right to panel or en banc rehearing of authorization decisions. Every successive federal claim still must meet § 2255(h), and the opinion did not itself authorize Bowe's motion.