Some more critical examinations of the impact of SCOTUS decision in Jones v. Hendrix

It is now a month since the US Supreme Court’s notable ruling regarding federal collateral review in Jones v. Hendrix (basics here), which served to block a pathway for federal prisoners to pursue claims that they are legally innocent or subject to excessive punishment under new statutory authority.  I have collected some (mostly critical) early commentary on the Court’s work in Jones in prior posts (see links below), and I have now seen two more new pieces in this genre:

From The Appeal, “SCOTUS Conviction Ruling Already Harming Innocent People, Lawyers Say.”  An excerpt:

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in some instances, incarcerated people can be barred from filing multiple claims of innocence, even if they did not commit the crime for which they’re in prison. Federal defense attorneys told The Appeal the ruling is already causing harm.

From Law360, “How Habeas Corpus Ruling May Condemn Innocent Prisoners.”  An excerpt:

Habeas corpus experts, some of whose work was referenced in Justice Jackson’s dissent footnotes, told Law360 it’s hard to estimate how many people will be adversely affected by the decision, but they warn of deeper, longer-lasting and potentially troubling impacts on the integrity of the justice system.

Prior related posts:

• By expected 6-3 vote, SCOTUS in Jones v. Hendrix limits reach of habeas corpus statute, § 2241, for federal prisoners 
• Early (mostly critical) commentary on Jones v. Hendrix
• How many legally innocent federal prisoners are stymied by Jones and do they have other pathways to relief?
• A little more critical commentary on Jones v. Hendrix
• Thorough and thoughtful account of Jones v. Hendrix and a pitch for a congressional response