On this page
A § 2255 motion can argue that the court “was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence” — that it had no legal power to do what it did. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). True jurisdictional defects cannot be waived. But courts today treat fewer errors as “jurisdictional” than they once did, so many of these claims are subject to the usual default and waiver rules.
Federal courts have limited power. They get it only from Article III of the Constitution and from laws passed by Congress. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982). The parties cannot give a federal court power it does not have. Id. at 702.
Why does it matter whether an error is “jurisdictional”?
A true lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and cannot be waived or forfeited. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). An ordinary error, by contrast, can be lost if it was not raised at the right time.
In Cotton, the Supreme Court held that defects in an indictment do not deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case. Id. at 630-31. Since then, many courts treat claims that once were called “jurisdictional” — like a defective indictment — as ordinary claims that can be procedurally defaulted. Some of the older cases below should be read with that in mind.
When has a court acted beyond its authority?
- Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424 (1974). Under the former Federal Youth Corrections Act, the district court had to make an express finding that a youth offender would not benefit from treatment under the Act before sentencing him as an adult.
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
- Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381 (1980). The statute did not authorize a special parole term for the conspiracy offense, so the court could not impose one.
- Smith v. United States, 360 U.S. 1 (1959). A capital offense had to be prosecuted by indictment, not by a criminal information. The Fifth Amendment requires an indictment for crimes punishable by death.
- United States v. DiPasquale, 859 F.2d 9 (3d Cir. 1988). The district court imposed a parole-ineligibility period longer than the statute allowed.
- Harris v. United States, 149 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1998). The court enhanced the sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851 even though the government had not filed the required notice of prior convictions before the plea. The Eleventh Circuit treated the missing notice as a jurisdictional defect.
What if the indictment did not charge a crime?
- United States v. Harper, 901 F.2d 471, 472-73 (5th Cir. 1990). An indictment that leaves out an essential element of the offense fails to charge that offense. (Decided before Cotton, which held that indictment defects are not jurisdictional.)
- Scott v. United States, 231 F.Supp. 360 (D.N.J. 1964). Even after a guilty plea, an indictment so defective that it charges no offense was held open to attack under § 2255. (Also decided before Cotton.)
What if there was not enough evidence of the federal “hook”?
Many federal crimes require proof of a connection to interstate commerce. Some courts have called that element “jurisdictional.” Others treat it as an ordinary element of the crime, so a challenge to it is subject to the normal rules on default and waiver.
- United States v. Ryan, 227 F.3d 1058, 1061 (8th Cir. 2000). With insufficient evidence of the interstate-commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), the panel held the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the conviction, and a § 2255 attack was proper.
- United States v. Guess, 203 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2000). After Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), which narrowed the meaning of “use” of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), the evidence did not support the “use” conviction.
- Toulabi v. United States, 875 F.2d 122 (7th Cir. 1989). After McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), which rejected the “intangible rights” theory under the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a conviction based on that theory was open to a § 2255 challenge.
Claims like those in Guess and Toulabi — where a later Supreme Court decision shows the conduct was not a crime — are often better framed as claims that the conviction violates federal law. See conviction or sentence violates federal law.
Why are jurisdiction claims complicated?
Partly because of the “chameleon-like quality of the term jurisdiction.” Prou v. United States, 199 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 1999).
Courts disagree. In Prou, the First Circuit held that the government’s failure to file a timely § 851 notice was not jurisdictional, so it was subject to default and waiver in a § 2255 case. In Harris, 149 F.3d 1304, the Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite result. Which rule applies depends on your circuit and on later case law.
Common questions
What does it mean that a court lacked jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is a court’s power to hear a case. Some courts have general jurisdiction and can hear almost any dispute. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. They can hear only the cases that Article III of the Constitution and acts of Congress allow.
My indictment didn’t charge an offense. Can I challenge my conviction with a § 2255 motion?
Possibly, but it is harder than it used to be. Under United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002), a defective indictment does not take away the court’s jurisdiction. That means the claim can be lost if it was not raised before trial or on appeal, unless you can show cause and prejudice or actual innocence — or that your lawyer was ineffective for not raising it.
There was not enough evidence that I affected interstate commerce. Can I use § 2255?
Possibly. Courts disagree on whether the interstate-commerce element is truly “jurisdictional.” If it is treated as an ordinary element, the usual procedural default rules apply, and you may need to frame the claim as ineffective assistance or actual innocence. If you think this applies to your case, book a consultation with Brandon Sample to talk it through.
Related pages
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates the Constitution
Cognizable Claims: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Pretrial
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Trial
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Sentencing
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Appeal
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence Violates Federal Law
Cognizable Claims: The Conviction or Sentence is Otherwise Subject to Collateral Attack
Questions about your case? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.