Bowe v. United States: Successive § 2255 Rules Are Not the Same as State Habeas Rules

If your loved one is a federal prisoner trying to file a second § 2255 motion, a January 9, 2026 Supreme Court decision may help. In Bowe v. United States, the Court held that a strict rule written for state prisoners does not apply to federal prisoners' successive § 2255 motions.

Michael Bowe challenged his § 924(c) gun conviction after later cases narrowed what counts as a "crime of violence." The Eleventh Circuit refused to let him file a second motion. It relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), which bars state prisoners from raising the same claim twice.

The Supreme Court made two rulings:

• It can review the case. The certiorari bar in § 2244(b)(3)(E) does not apply to federal prisoners.
• The repeat-claim bar does not apply. Section 2244(b)(1) does not cover successive motions under § 2255(h).

The Court vacated the decision. It sent the case back so the Eleventh Circuit could decide, under the correct standard, whether Bowe may file.

What this means for your family

A federal prisoner who was turned away from filing a second § 2255 motion only because the claim had been raised before may want that decision reviewed. The other limits still apply. A successive motion still needs either a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law from the Supreme Court or strong new evidence. The court of appeals must also approve it first.

Your next step

Gather any prior § 2255 orders and court of appeals denials, with dates. Book a consultation to talk about your case.