Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 60

28 

JONES v. HENDRIX 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

generally  prohibits  a  court  from  inferring  that  the  “in-
clu[sion of] one item . . . is to exclude other similar items” 
in order to read a statute as forbidding review of a postcon-
viction claim.  560 U. S., at 648; see also id., at 649 (“coun-
sel[ing] hesitancy before interpreting AEDPA’s statutory si-
intent  to  close 
lence  as 
courthouse  doors”).  Yet,  here,  as  the  majority  appears  to 
admit,  the  only  way  to  read  §2255(h)  as  barring  Jones’s
statutory innocence claim is to infer that such preclusion is
what Congress intended.  Ante, at 10, 23. 

indicating  a  congressional 

This case would have been easily resolved if we had ap-
plied the clear-statement rule at the outset, as we have al-
ways done in cases of this nature.  Doing so would have ap-
propriately eliminated a reading of §2255(h) that forecloses
access to habeas relief by negative implication.  Use of the 
rule  would  have  thus  protected  core  constitutional  norms
by “ensur[ing] Congress does not, by broad or general lan-
guage, legislate on a sensitive topic inadvertently or with-
out  due  deliberation.”  Spector  v.  Norwegian  Cruise  Line 
Ltd., 545 U. S. 119, 139 (2005) (opinion of Kennedy, J.); see 
also Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58, 65 
(1989). 

2 
In the last few pages of its opinion, the Court makes the
unceremonious (but still startling) announcement that the
clear-statement  rule  is  inapplicable  to  today’s  analysis  of
§2255(h).  Ante, at 23–25.16  Try as it might, in my view, the
majority has failed to provide a single persuasive reason for 
this dramatic break. 

First, the majority suggests that the clear-statement rule 
is not appropriate when interpreting provisions related to 

—————— 

16 It appears that no one but the Court’s majority even thought it pos-
sible to sidestep the clear-statement rule with respect to today’s inter-
pretive exercise.  Both Jones and the Government expressly invoked it. 
And Court-appointed amicus did not dispute its applicability.