Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

7 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

“manifes[t]  a  well-established  congressional  policy  not  to
strip [noncitizens] of advantages gained under prior laws”). 

2 

Fast  forward  to  1996:  Congress  reenacted  the  saving 
clause—using identical language—when it passed AEDPA.
§2255(e); §2255 (1948).  Thus, because the saving clause op-
erated in 1948 to “save” from inadvertent extinguishment
habeas claims that were available before the enactment of 
§2255, the same was true when Congress revised those pro-
cedures in the mid-1990s, while keeping the saving clause 
intact.  In  other  words,  both  in  1948  and  to  this  day,  the 
saving clause operates to (among other things) ensure that
§2255—or the AEDPA  amendments—did not,  through in-
apt  language,  substantively  alter  the  scope  of  available 
postconviction relief for federal prisoners. 

This is not to say that Congress necessarily carried for-
ward all of its previous policy determinations with respect 
to the availability of postconviction claims, or that it did not 
change its mind at all about the appropriate dimensions of 
postconviction relief.  Indeed, habeas is a dynamic remedy, 
and  congressional  enactments  contribute  to  its  evolution.
See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U. S. 651, 664 (1996); see also 2 
R.  Hertz  &  J.  Liebman,  Federal  Habeas  Corpus  Practice 
and  Procedure  §28.4[a],  p.  1738  (7th  ed.  2020)  (Hertz  & 
Liebman) (“Anglo-American law . . . has imposed an evolv-
ing set of restrictions on second and subsequent petitions”).
But, again, the saving clause—which served an important
equalizing function—remained intact when Congress reen-
acted  §2255  in  1996.  Thus,  while  Congress  can  certainly
act to change the scope of habeas or its statutory equivalent 
if it wants to do so, in order to overcome the operation of the
saving  clause  (which,  again,  was  inserted  to  maintain 
equivalence  in  the  absence  of  intent  to  make  a  change),
Congress  has  to  make  said  change  to  the  availability  of