Washington, D.C.— Today, the MacArthur Justice Center’s Greg Cui joined co-counsel Andrew Adler and Janice Bergmann from the Federal Public Defender’s Office at the Supreme Court, where Mr. Adler argued on behalf of our client, Michael Bowe. The Federal Public Defender’s Office and the MacArthur Justice Center are fighting to ensure that courts do not improperly impose additional restrictions on the habeas corpus process contrary to the text of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which already places significant barriers on incarcerated people challenging the legality of their detention.

Habeas corpus is a vital check on government power and a constitutionally protected right. It gives people who are detained or otherwise in custody an opportunity to appear in federal court and challenge the legality of their custody. In many cases, habeas corpus is the only form of legal redress available to people who are unlawfully detained.

Under AEDPA, federal prisoners generally cannot file traditional habeas corpus applications. Instead, federal prisoners must file an alternative post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, known as a “2255 motion.” These motions are subject to certain restrictions under Section 2255, whereas state prisoners’ habeas applications are subject to other restrictions.

The ability to seek relief under Section 2255 is especially significant in Mr. Bowe’s case because it is the only way for him to raise a federal constitutional claim that he is legally innocent of the crime for which he is serving a mandatory 10-year sentence. Because of a Supreme Court decision called United States v. Davis, Mr. Bowe is not guilty of a “crime of violence” as necessary for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In several cases, the Eleventh Circuit has authorized Section 2255 motions raising identical claims.

Mr. Bowe was prevented from filing a Section 2255 motion raising this claim, however, because the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals wrongly applied a restriction in AEDPA that expressly pertains only to state prisoners filing habeas corpus applications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 — not federal prisoners like Mr. Bowe. All agree that federal prisoners like Mr. Bowe are barred from filing habeas corpus applications under Section 2254. Yet the Eleventh Circuit, along with the majority of Circuits to address this question, apply a restriction on “application[s] under section 2254” to motions under Section 2255.

This case aims to defend federal prisoners’ ability to access post-conviction relief by ensuring that courts do not disregard the text of AEDPA in order to impose additional barriers to filing Section 2255 motions. There are already many restrictions on the right to habeas corpus. Courts cannot and should not create additional obstacles contrary to the clear text of the law.

Read more about Mr. Bowe’s case here.

For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact media@macarthurjustice.org