Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 309.0

524US1

Unit: $U85

[09-14-00 16:49:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

264

HOHN v. UNITED STATES

Scalia, J., dissenting

fers from the gatekeeping statute at issue in House in a cru-
cial respect: when House was decided, claimants could seek
certiﬁcates of probable cause only from “the United States
court by which the ﬁnal decision was rendered or a judge of
the circuit court of appeals,” 28 U. S. C. § 466 (1940 ed.),
whereas § 102 of AEDPA permits claimants to seek COA’s
from a “circuit justice or judge.” Because petitioner may
obtain the relief he seeks from a circuit justice, relief under
the All Writs Act is not “necessary.”

Relief under the Act is also not “appropriate.” The only
circumstance alleged by petitioner to justify relief is that the
Eighth Circuit erroneously concluded that he failed to pre-
sent a substantial constitutional question. There is nothing
“exceptional” about this claim; it is in fact the same claim
available to every petitioner when a COA is denied, and en-
tertaining it would render application for this “extraordi-
Issuance of the writ is not “ap-
nary” writ utterly routine.
propriate” for another reason as well: It would frustrate the
purpose of AEDPA, which is to prevent review unless a COA
is granted.
“Where a statute speciﬁcally addresses the par-
ticular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All
Writs Act, that is controlling. Although that Act empowers
federal courts to fashion extraordinary remedies when the
need arises, it does not authorize them to issue ad hoc writs
whenever compliance with statutory procedures appears in-
convenient or less appropriate.” Pennsylvania Bureau of
Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U. S. 34,
43 (1985).4

*

*

*

The purpose of AEDPA is not obscure.

It was to elimi-
nate the interminable delays in the execution of state and
federal criminal sentences, and the shameful overloading of

4 Because petitioner has not demonstrated that issuance of the writ is
“necessary” or “appropriate” under § 1651, I need not discuss whether it
fails the further requirement that it be “in aid of ” our jurisdiction.