Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 568

529US2

Unit: $U50

[09-26-01 10:29:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 473 (2000)

493

Opinion of Scalia, J.

necessary, however—and the States would not be remanded
to reliance upon the discretion of district judges—if the limi-
tation on “second or successive” petitions were given its nat-
ural meaning.

Because I believe petitioner’s inclusion of new and un-
exhausted claims in his postexhaustion petition rendered it
second or successive, he is not entitled to a certiﬁcate of
appealability, and I would afﬁrm the decision of the Court
of Appeals.