Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 294.0

524US1

Unit: $U85

[09-14-00 16:49:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 236 (1998)

249

Opinion of the Court

sissippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 440
It is true we have held appellate jurisdiction im-
(1946).
proper when district courts have denied, rather than
granted, motions to dismiss for improper venue. The juris-
dictional problem in those cases, however, was the interlocu-
tory nature of the appeal, not the absence of a proper case.
Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U. S. 495 (1989); Van
Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S. 517 (1988).
In any event,
concerns about adversity are misplaced in this case. Here
the Government entered an appearance in response to the
initial application and ﬁled a response opposing Hohn’s peti-
tion for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc.
App. 4, 5.

to review threshold jurisdictional

The argument that this Court lacks jurisdiction under
§ 1254(1)
inquiries is
further refuted by the recent amendment to 28 U. S. C.
§ 2244(b)(3). The statute requires state prisoners ﬁling sec-
ond or successive habeas applications under § 2254 to ﬁrst
“move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application.”
28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. II). The statute
further provides “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization
by a court of appeals to ﬁle a second or successive appli-
cation shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject
of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.”
§ 2244(b)(3)(E).
It would have been unnecessary to include
a provision barring certiorari review if a motion to ﬁle a
second or successive application would not otherwise have
constituted a case in the court of appeals for purposes of
28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). We are reluctant to adopt a construc-
tion making another statutory provision superﬂuous. See,
e. g., Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U. S. 57, 62 (1998); United
States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538–539 (1955).

Inclusion of a speciﬁc provision barring certiorari review
of denials of motions to ﬁle second or successive applications
is instructive for another reason. The requirements for cer-