Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

JONES v. HENDRIX, WARDEN 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE  EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21–857.  Argued November 1, 2022—Decided June 22, 2023 

In 2000, the District Court for the Western District of Missouri sentenced 
petitioner  Marcus  DeAngelo  Jones  after  he  was  convicted  on  two 
counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18
U. S. C.  §922(g)(1),  and  one  count  of  making  false  statements  to  ac-
quire a firearm.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed Jones’ convictions and 
sentence.    Jones  then  filed  a  motion  pursuant  to  28  U. S. C.  §2255, 
which  resulted  in  the  vacatur  of  one  of  his  concurrent  §922(g)  sen-
tences.  Many years later, this Court held in Rehaif v. United States, 
588 U. S. ___, that a defendant’s knowledge of the status that disqual-
ifies him from owning a firearm is an element of a §922(g) conviction. 
Rehaif ’s holding abrogated contrary Eighth Circuit precedent applied
by the courts in Jones’ trial and direct appeal.  Seeking to collaterally 
attack  his  remaining  §922(g)  conviction  based  on  Rehaif ’s  statutory 
holding,  Jones  filed  a  petition  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  under  28 
U. S. C. §2241 in the district of his imprisonment, the Eastern District
of Arkansas.  The District Court dismissed Jones’ habeas petition for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.  

Held: Section 2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening 
change in interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Anti-
terrorism  and  Effective  Death  Penalty  Act  of  1996’s  (AEDPA)  re-
strictions on second or successive §2255 motions by filing a §2241 ha-
beas petition.  Pp. 3–25.

(a) Congress created §2255  as a remedial  vehicle by which federal 
prisoners  could  collaterally  attack  their  sentences  by  motion  in  the 
sentencing court, rather than by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under §2241 in the district of confinement.  The “sole purpose” of §2255
was to address the “serious administrative problems” created by dis-
trict  courts  collaterally  reviewing  one  another’s  proceedings  without