| Jones v. Hendrix | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 1, 2022 Decided June 22, 2023 | |
| Full case name | Marcus Deangelo Jones v. Dewayne Hendrix, Warden |
| Docket no. | 21-857 |
| Citations | 599 U.S. 465 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether federal inmates who did not — because established circuit precedent stood firmly against them — challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after the Supreme Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction. | |
| Holding | |
| Section 2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (AEDPA) restrictions on second or successive §2255 motions by filing a §2241 habeas petition | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
| Dissent | Sotomayor and Kagan |
| Dissent | Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 | |
Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to habeas corpus.