Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

2 

JONES v. HENDRIX 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

of §2255(e), which was to “save” any claim that was availa-
ble prior to §2255(h)’s enactment where Congress has not
expressed a clear intent to foreclose it.  Jones’s legal inno-
cence claim fits that mold. 

I am also deeply troubled by the constitutional implica-
tions of the nothing-to-see-here approach that the majority
takes with respect to the incarceration of potential legal in-
nocents.  See Part III, infra.  Apparently, legally innocent
or not, Jones must just carry on in prison regardless, since
(as the majority reads §2255) no path exists for him to ask 
a federal judge to consider his innocence assertion.  But for-
ever slamming the courtroom doors to a possibly innocent 
person who has never had a meaningful opportunity to get 
a  new  and  retroactively  applicable  claim  for  release  re-
viewed on the merits raises serious constitutional concerns. 
Thus, in my view, all roads lead to an interpretation of
§2255 that is diametrically opposed to the one that the ma-
jority  announces.  Whether  one  gets  there  by  virtue  of  a
proper reading of §2255(e) or an informed understanding of
§2255(h), or by affording due respect to the core constitu-
tional interests at stake, Jones’s successive petition alleg-
ing  legal  innocence  should  have  been  considered  on  the 
merits.2  Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 

I 
Section 2255(e) saves postconviction claims by authoriz-
ing the filing of a habeas petition under §2241 if the proce-
dures  §2255  affords  are  “inadequate  or  ineffective  to  test 
the legality of [a prisoner’s] detention.”  §2255(e).  I see no 
reason why the only circumstance in which §2255’s proce-
dures qualify as inadequate or ineffective for saving clause 
purposes is when it is impossible or impractical for a pris-
oner to file a §2255 motion.  Contra, ante, at 6–7.  Quite to 

—————— 

2 I take no position as to whether Jones’s legal innocence claim is actu-
ally meritorious.  This case is about whether §2255 should be interpreted 
to prevent him from bringing the claim to a court in the first place.