Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 299

524US1

Unit: $U85

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

254

HOHN v. UNITED STATES

Scalia, J., dissenting

advantage of having a clear majority for a rule governing
our jurisdiction to reverse erroneous denials of certiﬁcates
of appealability persuades me to join the others in overruling
House insofar as it would bear on issuance of a statutory
writ of certiorari under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice, Jus-

tice O(cid:146)Connor, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

Today’s opinion permits review where Congress, with un-
mistakable clarity, has denied it. To reach this result, the
Court ignores the obvious intent of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. 104–
132, 110 Stat. 1214, distorts the meaning of our own juris-
dictional statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1), and overrules a 53-
year-old precedent, House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42 (1945) (per
curiam).

I respectfully dissent.

I

This Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1) is lim-
ited to “[c]ases in the courts of appeals.” Section 102 of
AEDPA provides that “[u]nless a circuit justice or judge is-
sues a certiﬁcate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken
to the court of appeals from . . . the ﬁnal order in a habeas
corpus proceeding under section 2255,” that is, a district
court habeas proceeding challenging federal custody. Peti-
tioner, who is challenging federal custody under 28 U. S. C.
§ 2255, did not obtain a certiﬁcate of appealability (COA).
By the plain language of AEDPA, his appeal “from” the dis-
trict court’s “ﬁnal order” “may not be taken to the court
of appeals.” Because it could not be taken to the Court of
Appeals, it quite obviously was never in the Court of Ap-
peals; and because it was never in the Court of Appeals, we
lack jurisdiction under § 1254(1) to entertain it.

We have already squarely and explicitly endorsed this
In House v. Mayo, 324
involving the predecessors to §§ 1254(1) and

straightforward interpretation.
U. S., at 44,