Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 70

38 

JONES v. HENDRIX 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

eral review, and ends with the realization that only an ar-
bitrarily determined sliver of eligible prisoners (those who 
have not had the temerity to file a prior motion) are actually
in  a  position  to  even  ask  a  court  to  consider  whether  any 
such relief might be provided. 

It is quite clear that the Court’s rulings in this area of the 
law reflect a general ethos that convicted prisoners should 
not be permitted to file §2255 motions or obtain postconvic-
tion relief at all.  But what matters is what Congress wants 
with respect to the operation of the statutory provisions it 
enacts.  And, as I have shown, Congress’s aim in crafting 
§2255 was to permit convicted prisoners to file postconvic-
tion motions asserting claims for collateral relief in a man-
ner  that  also  curbs  abusive  filings.    Congress  did  not
speak—one way or the other—as to what should happen if 
a prisoner who has previously filed a §2255 motion gets a 
new claim of legal innocence due to an intervening change
in the law. 

Given Congress’s silence on this matter, in my view, there 
is simply no justification for drawing a negative inference 
that Congress meant for §2255 to operate in a manner that 
is patently inconsistent with the reasons it passed that stat-
ute,  or  the  background  principles  that  animated  the  law
more broadly at the time of the statute’s enactment, or even 
(possibly) core constitutional principles.  Instead, §2255(e)
should be read—consistent with Congress’s general intent 
to ensure equivalence between the claims available in ha-
beas and those that its new postconviction mechanism al-
lowed—to permit prisoners who have a new and retroactive
statutory innocence claim to file a habeas petition in lieu of
a §2255 motion.  Alternatively, we should honor Congress’s
clear interest in preserving a prisoner’s ability to have one
meaningful opportunity to have all of his claims presented 
to a court, by allowing Jones to file a petition asserting his 
new and retroactive claim of statutory innocence, notwith-
standing what might otherwise be perceived as an ironclad