Successive but Not Successful: Does the AEDPA Allow Federal Prisoners to Reassert Previously Presented Claims for Habeas Relief?

Michael P. Bitgood
{"title":"Successive but Not Successful: Does the AEDPA Allow Federal Prisoners to Reassert Previously Presented Claims for Habeas Relief?","authors":"Michael P. Bitgood","doi":"10.37419/lr.v11.i3.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) unequivocally bars state prisoners from reasserting previously presented claims for habeas relief. Currently, the circuits are embroiled in a disagreement regarding whether the AEDPA also bars federal prisoners in the same way, and federal prisoners’ potentially viable claims for habeas relief hang in the balance. Prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jones v. United States, six circuits agreed that the AEDPA does bar federal prisoners’ previously asserted habeas claims, but the Sixth Circuit alone disagreed. Now, the Jones decision aligns the Ninth Circuit with the Sixth Circuit’s position. Through an in-depth analysis of Jones, this Note argues that Jones was rightly decided and that the AEDPA should not be construed to bar federal prisoners’ previously presented habeas claims. Since both textual analysis and sound public policy compel this conclusion, this Note proposes that the Supreme Court should adopt Jones’s holding to end this circuit split.","PeriodicalId":174752,"journal":{"name":"Texas A&M Law Review","volume":"115 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas A&M Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37419/lr.v11.i3.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) unequivocally bars state prisoners from reasserting previously presented claims for habeas relief. Currently, the circuits are embroiled in a disagreement regarding whether the AEDPA also bars federal prisoners in the same way, and federal prisoners’ potentially viable claims for habeas relief hang in the balance. Prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jones v. United States, six circuits agreed that the AEDPA does bar federal prisoners’ previously asserted habeas claims, but the Sixth Circuit alone disagreed. Now, the Jones decision aligns the Ninth Circuit with the Sixth Circuit’s position. Through an in-depth analysis of Jones, this Note argues that Jones was rightly decided and that the AEDPA should not be construed to bar federal prisoners’ previously presented habeas claims. Since both textual analysis and sound public policy compel this conclusion, this Note proposes that the Supreme Court should adopt Jones’s holding to end this circuit split.
继承但不成功:AEDPA 是否允许联邦囚犯重新提出以前提出的人身救济请求?
1996 年《反恐怖主义和有效死刑法》(AEDPA)明确禁止州囚犯重新提出以前提出的人身保护救济请求。目前,对于《反恐怖主义和有效死刑法》是否也以同样的方式禁止联邦囚犯,各巡回法院陷入了分歧,联邦囚犯潜在可行的人身保护救济请求悬而未决。在第九巡回法院对琼斯诉美国一案做出裁决之前,六个巡回法院一致认为《美国保护所有人免遭强迫失踪法》确实禁止联邦囚犯之前提出的人身保护申诉,但只有第六巡回法院持不同意见。现在,琼斯案的判决使第九巡回法院与第六巡回法院的立场保持一致。通过对琼斯案的深入分析,本说明认为琼斯案的判决是正确的,《保护所有人免遭强迫失踪国际公约》不应被解释为禁止联邦囚犯之前提出的人身保护申诉。由于文本分析和合理的公共政策都迫使我们得出这一结论,本说明建议最高法院采纳琼斯案的判决,以结束这一巡回法院分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信