Skip to content
Version 1.0.0
Sentencing Law and Policy
Part of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Unanimous Supreme Court clarifies what qualifies as “second or successive” habeas application under AEDPA

By Douglas Berman

The Surpeme Court’s first released opinion this morning was a unanimous ruling in Rivers v. Guerrero, No. 23-1345 (S. Ct. June 12, 2025) (available here).  Authored by Justice Jackson, the opinion begins this way:

Incarcerated individuals who seek to challenge their imprisonment through a federal habeas petition are generally afforded one opportunity to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254, 2244.  Before a federal court can address a petitioner’s second or successive federal habeas filing on the merits, the incarcerated filer must clear strict procedural hurdles that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) erects.  See § 2244(b).  This case presents the question of how to classify a second-in-time habeas filing when the judgment denying the first application is under review on appeal. Does that second habeas-related submission qualify as a second or successive application, thereby triggering § 2244(b)’s stringent gatekeeping requirements?

We hold that, in general, once the district court has entered its judgment with respect to the first habeas petition, a second-in-time application qualifies as “second or successive” and is thus properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).

The Court today released five more opinions, nearly all also unanimous and dealing with mostly procedural issues. A couple of these other rulings might be viewed as criminal adjecent, but the wait continues for the two notable argued sentencing cases still pending, Hewitt v. US, No. 23-1002 (argued Jan 13, 2025), and Esteras v. US, No. 23-7483 (argued Feb 25, 2025).

Once the Rivera decision came out, I was thinking today might be a SCOTUS criminal case day.  But, based on the Court’s announced opinon days, June 18, would now appear to be the earliest we can hope for Hewitt and Esteras.  Especially since other matters have my attention today, I suppose I do not mind a little more waiting.  Still, the fact that we got neither of these opinions today reinforces my expectation that these cases are going to produce a divided Court and perhaps a number of opinions.