Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

6 

JONES v. HENDRIX 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

Thus, the saving clause can be properly interpreted as ef-
fectuating Congress’s intent in this regard.  As the Govern-
ment persuasively argues, by inserting a provision that al-
lows  prisoners  to  still  file  habeas  petitions,  Congress
“ensure[d] that Section 2255 does not disadvantage federal
prisoners as compared to habeas.”  Brief for Respondent 17; 
see also Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 776 (2008) (not-
ing  that  the  purpose  of  §2255  was  “to  strengthen,  rather 
than dilute, the writ’s protections” and further recognizing 
that the saving clause served that purpose).  That is, where 
a federal prisoner could have brought a particular habeas
claim prior to 1948, but could not bring such a claim in a 
§2255 petition after that date, the saving clause kicks in to 
permit  that  individual  to  resort  to  habeas  to  raise  that 
claim. 

This reading of §2255(e) means that the saving clause op-
erates (at the very least, and as it was enacted in 1948) to 
preserve  from  inadvertent  extinguishment  postconviction
claims that would have been previously cognizable for fed-
eral prisoners but cannot be brought by operation of §2255. 
And the flip side of that interpretation—that §2255 is inad-
equate  or  ineffective  if  it  sub  silentio  extinguishes  previ-
ously  available  habeas  claims,  triggering  the  saving
clause—inexorably follows.  This interpretation tracks Con-
gress’s clear claim-preservation goal.  And, as an added bo-
nus, it also has the benefit of being in accordance with how 
saving  clauses  usually  work.    See  2  J.  Sutherland,  Statu-
tory Construction §4830, pp. 376–377 (3d ed. 1943) (defin-
ing “saving clause” as a provision “said to preserve from de-
struction certain rights, remedies or privileges which would 
otherwise be destroyed by the general enactment”); see, e.g., 
Andrus v. Shell Oil Co., 446 U. S. 657, 666 (1980) (noting 
that Congress included a “savings clause” in the statute at
issue  to  “preserv[e]  pre-existing  claims”); United  States  v. 
Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 535 (1955) (noting that the pur-
pose of a saving clause in the immigration context was to