WASHINGTON, D.C. — A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bowe v. United States changes how federal prisoners can challenge unlawful convictions and sentences, opening a path to Supreme Court review that lower courts had previously closed. An article in Slate explains that the court held a key restriction, imposed by Congress on state habeas petitions, does not apply to federal prisoners, allowing them to seek Supreme Court review when permission to file post-conviction motions is denied.
The case arose from Michael Bowe, who served a mandatory 10-year sentence on top of an initial 14-year sentence for conspiracy and attempted Hobbs Act robbery, according to Slate. His sentence was enhanced under a federal firearms statute that applies only when a person commits a “crime of violence.”
Slate reports that after Bowe was sentenced, the Supreme Court dismantled the legal basis for treating those crimes as violent. In 2019, the court decided United States v. Davis, striking down part of the “crime of violence” definition as unconstitutionally vague.
That decision was followed in 2022 by United States v. Taylor, which held that attempted robbery does not qualify under the remaining portion of the statute. Conspiracy also does not qualify, according to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, meaning that if Bowe were sentenced today, his firearm enhancement would no longer apply.
Slate explains that Bowe sought relief by arguing that his conviction rested on an unconstitutional basis. The 11th Circuit rejected that claim because, at the time of his conviction, it still treated attempted Hobbs Act robbery as a qualifying crime for sentence enhancement, as described in the article. Even though part of the statute was struck down in Davis, the conviction survived under another provision.
Bowe later returned to court but was again blocked on procedural grounds. His Davis claim was barred as an old claim because he had raised it in a prior motion, and his Taylor argument was deemed unhelpful because it was statutory rather than constitutional, Slate reported.
The Supreme Court then agreed to review the case to resolve two questions that had divided lower courts. First, the court considered whether it had jurisdiction to review denials of authorization to file successive federal habeas motions.
Slate notes that many circuits had assumed that a jurisdictional bar applicable to state prisoners also applied to federal prisoners, an interpretation the Supreme Court rejected. The statute refers to state habeas “applications,” while federal prisoners file post-conviction “motions” under a separate statute.
According to Slate, the court’s second holding addressed the procedural rule that had blocked Bowe’s claim. The statute barring repeat claims applies only to second or successive habeas petitions filed by state prisoners under a specific provision, while federal prisoners fall under a different section.
Some courts had imported the state-law bar on old claims into federal practice, but the Supreme Court declined to do so, reasoning that Congress used different language in the two statutes deliberately. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that courts may not graft additional restrictions onto the federal scheme simply because the outcome might appear cleaner.
Slate argues that the correction matters because it removes the procedural trap that ensnared Bowe. He may now seek authorization to file a successive motion based on Davis and rely on Taylor to show that, once the unconstitutional residual clause is removed, no valid predicate offense remains.
The decision reinforces the importance of Supreme Court review, Slate observes. Post-conviction litigation often turns not on the merits of a case but on whether any court is available to hear it at all.
Slate contends that in a system built on layered review, preserving access to the Supreme Court keeps open a forum of last resort in cases where liberty depends on whether the courthouse door has closed permanently.
Prisoners must still meet the requirements for filing successive motions, Slate notes. While Bowe does not eliminate all barriers in the legal system, it removes one that punished prisoners based on the timing of legal change rather than the legality of their sentences.
Slate concludes that for the federal system and similar contexts, the ruling reopens a path that had narrowed over time and helps ensure that procedural rules in federal post-conviction practice do not entrench legal error simply because the law evolved in stages.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
