Thorough and thoughtful account of Jones v. Hendrix and a pitch for a congressional response

Adam Unikowsky has this lengthy posting at his Substack site titled “Imprisoning innocent people is bad; Section 2255 should be fixed immediately.” The full piece is worth a full read for anyone interested in federal habeas law and the Supreme Court’s work in Jones v. Hendrix (basics here).  Here is a taste and a preview (emphasis from original): 

Jones’s holding seems pretty ghoulish.  But Justice Thomas’s majority opinion is well-written and persuasive.  He puts forward a powerful argument that under the plain text of the applicable federal statutes, federal prisoners are forbidden from bringing this type of challenge.

Justice Jackson’s dissent is also well-written and persuasive.  She puts forward a powerful argument that the majority’s interpretation conflicts with congressional intent and would lead to unfair consequences.  In the end, Jones presents a tough, close issue.

The purpose of this post is not to defend one side or the other of Jones.  It’s to advocate a statutory fix that would allow federal prisoners to file successive Section 2255 petitions when new Supreme Court decisions establish their innocence.

This is not a tough, close issue.  It is an obviously correct position that should prevail by unanimous voice votes in the House and Senate.

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