Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Oral Argument: Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25

1:31:41
 
Share
 

Manage episode 513625514 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

Oral Argument: Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Background: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added).

Question Presented:

  1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[ t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari. ” (emphasis added).
  2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Oral Advocates:

  • For Petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
  • For Respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
  • For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below as to Question 1: Kasdin M. Mitchell, Dallas, Tex.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:00:47] Argument Begins

[00:00:55] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:02:46] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:23:01] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:36:49] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:39:09] Respondent Free for All Questions

[01:03:04] Respondent Sequential Questions

[01:14:14] Court-Appointed Amicus Opening Statement

[01:16:15]  Court-Appointed Amicus Free for All Questions

[01:27:23]  Court-Appointed Amicus Sequential Questions

[01:28:11] Petitioner Rebuttal

  continue reading

338 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 513625514 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

Oral Argument: Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Background: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added).

Question Presented:

  1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[ t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari. ” (emphasis added).
  2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Oral Advocates:

  • For Petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
  • For Respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
  • For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below as to Question 1: Kasdin M. Mitchell, Dallas, Tex.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:00:47] Argument Begins

[00:00:55] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:02:46] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:23:01] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:36:49] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:39:09] Respondent Free for All Questions

[01:03:04] Respondent Sequential Questions

[01:14:14] Court-Appointed Amicus Opening Statement

[01:16:15]  Court-Appointed Amicus Free for All Questions

[01:27:23]  Court-Appointed Amicus Sequential Questions

[01:28:11] Petitioner Rebuttal

  continue reading

338 episodes

所有剧集

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Copyright 2025 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Copyright
Listen to this show while you explore
Play