Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

193  (CA10  1964)  (finding  §2255  inadequate  or  ineffective 
after Alaska territorial court was dissolved and federal and 
state successor courts declined §2255 and state-habeas ju-
risdiction, respectively).  The saving clause might also ap-
ply when “it is not practicable for the prisoner to have his 
motion determined in the trial court because of his inability 
to be present at the hearing, or for other reasons.”2  Hay-
man,  342  U. S.,  at  215,  n. 23  (internal  quotation  marks 
omitted).

In addition, the saving clause ensures that §2255(e) does 
not displace §2241 when a prisoner challenges “the legality
of his detention” without attacking the validity of his sen-
tence.  To give a few examples, a prisoner might wish to ar-
gue that he is being detained in a place or manner not au-
thorized  by  the  sentence,  that  he  has  unlawfully  been
denied parole or good-time credits, or that an administra-
tive sanction affecting the conditions of his detention is il-
legal.  See generally Samak v. Warden, FCC Coleman–Me-
dium,  766  F. 3d  1271,  1280  (CA11  2014)  (Pryor,  J., 
concurring) (explaining that “[t]he ‘detention’ of a prisoner
encompasses much more than a criminal ‘sentence’ ”).  The 
briefs  before  us  debate  whether  these  types  of  challenges 

—————— 

2 It bears mentioning that §2255 was enacted “eight years before Pres-
ident Eisenhower signed legislation funding the Interstate Highway Sys-
tem.”  Brief  for  Court-Appointed  Amicus  Curiae  17.  At  that  time,  it 
would  not  be  surprising  if  removing  a  prisoner  from  the  penitentiary, 
transporting him to the sentencing court for a hearing, and taking him
back  to  prison  again  sometimes  posed  difficulties  daunting  enough  to 
make a §2255 proceeding practically unavailable.  Cf. Stidham v. Swope, 
82 F. Supp. 931, 932–933 (ND Cal. 1949) (describing the difficulty and
delay involved in transporting a prisoner “upwards of 1,500 miles” from
the federal penitentiary in Alcatraz to the sentencing court in Missouri, 
a journey that “well could be two weeks” by rail).  That this sort of prac-
tical inadequacy would be highly unusual today should not blind us to 
the world in which Congress was legislating when it enacted the saving 
clause.