Bowe v. United States
No. 24-5438 · October Term 2025 · Criminal Procedure · decided January 9, 2026
Decided: Bowe won 5-4. The model was right.
Expected vote 6–3 for Bowe. Chance of a unanimous ruling 43%. FantasySCOTUS crowd: 61% Bowe.
The case
Michael Bowe is challenging his firearm conviction, arguing that changes in Supreme Court precedent mean his underlying crimes no longer qualify as "crimes of violence." The Eleventh Circuit denied his attempts to file additional challenges, stating it lacked jurisdiction because he was raising claims already presented. The Supreme Court must decide whether restrictions on second or successive habeas corpus applications apply to motions to vacate, and whether it has certiorari jurisdiction over a court of appeals' decision to grant or deny authorization for such motions.
- Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), which requires dismissal of claims presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application that were presented in a prior application, also applies to claims in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
- Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), which states that the grant or denial of authorization to file a second or successive application is not appealable and cannot be the subject of a writ of certiorari, deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over such decisions concerning motions to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added). 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.
Facts of the case (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 U.S. 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.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Criminal Procedure cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument | Voted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes statutory text and the Court's institutional role. His approach to statutory interpretation, particularly concerning jurisdictional limits, will be key in determining the scope of Sections 2244(b)(1) and 2244(b)(3)(E). | 66% Bowe | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 65% Criminal Procedure · 401 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | 11 / 16 questions at Bowe / United | Bowe ✓ |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a textualist who often favors strict interpretations of statutory language. His view on whether the specific language of 'habeas corpus application under section 2254' extends to 'motion to vacate under section 2255' will be central to his analysis. | 64% Bowe | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 55% Criminal Procedure · 724 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | 3 / 2 questions at Bowe / United | United States ✗ |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally takes a more conservative stance on criminal justice issues, often prioritizing finality in judgments. However, he also adheres to statutory text, and the precise wording of the relevant sections will guide his decision. | 59% Bowe | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 51% Criminal Procedure · 388 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | 13 / 8 questions at Bowe / United | United States ✗ |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often scrutinizes statutes that limit access to judicial review, particularly in cases involving prisoners' rights. She may be inclined to interpret the statutes narrowly to preserve avenues for relief where constitutional questions are raised. | 71% Bowe | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 72% Criminal Procedure · 306 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | 24 / 32 questions at Bowe / United | Bowe ✓ |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan is known for her pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation, often considering legislative intent and practical consequences. She may examine the purpose behind the restrictions on successive applications and motions. | 79% Bowe | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 72% Criminal Procedure · 267 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | 5 / 16 questions at Bowe / United | Bowe ✓ |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a textualist who often emphasizes the plain meaning of statutory language. His analysis will likely focus on whether the specific terms 'habeas corpus application under section 2254' explicitly include 'motion to vacate under section 2255' or if such an extension is unwarranted. | 59% Bowe | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 63% Criminal Procedure · 126 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | 26 / 9 questions at Bowe / United | United States ✗ |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often seeks to apply clear statutory text and precedent. He may look to the Court's prior interpretations of similar jurisdictional statutes and the distinctions between Section 2254 and Section 2255 proceedings. | 71% Bowe | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 66% Criminal Procedure · 105 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | 3 / 16 questions at Bowe / United | Bowe ✓ |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett is a textualist who prioritizes the ordinary meaning of statutory language. Her decision will likely hinge on a close reading of whether the terms 'habeas corpus application' and 'section 2254' can be read to encompass 'motion to vacate' and 'section 2255' in the context of the challenged provisions. | 56% Bowe | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 60% Criminal Procedure · 80 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | 7 / 7 questions at Bowe / United | United States ✗ |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often demonstrates a concern for access to justice and a thorough examination of statutory language in criminal cases. She will likely consider the implications of a broad or narrow reading of the jurisdictional statutes for individuals seeking post-conviction relief. | 79% Bowe | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 67% Criminal Procedure · 54 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | 12 / 20 questions at Bowe / United | Bowe ✓ |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.