Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–857 
_________________ 

MARCUS DEANGELO JONES, PETITIONER v. 
DEWAYNE HENDRIX, WARDEN 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

[June 22, 2023]

 JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 
This case concerns the interplay between two statutes: 28
U. S. C.  §2241,  the  general  habeas  corpus  statute,  and 
§2255,  which  provides  an  alternative  postconviction  rem-
edy  for  federal  prisoners.    Since  1948,  Congress  has  pro-
vided  that  a  federal  prisoner  who  collaterally  attacks  his
sentence  ordinarily  must  proceed  by  a  motion  in  the  sen-
tencing court under §2255, rather than by a petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus under §2241.  To that end, §2255(e) 
bars a federal prisoner from proceeding under §2241 “un-
less . . . the [§2255] remedy by motion is inadequate or in-
effective to test the legality of his detention.” 

Separately, since the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), second or successive §2255
motions are barred unless they rely on either “newly discov-
ered evidence,” §2255(h)(1), or “a new rule of constitutional 
law,” §2255(h)(2).  A federal prisoner may not, therefore, file 
a second or successive §2255 motion based solely on a more 
favorable interpretation of statutory law adopted after his 
conviction  became  final  and  his  initial  §2255  motion  was
resolved.