« Notable new data showing pot arrests way down in Colorado after reforms | Main | Does Gov. Christie kerfuffle suggest being a bully is always a big part of a former prosecutor's playbook? »

January 12, 2014

"Kaleidoscopic Chaos: Understanding the Circuit Courts’ Various Interpretations of § 2255's Savings Clause"

The title of this post is the title of this informative and important new piece now available via SSRN and authored by Jennifer Case. Here is the abstract:

More than 65 years ago, Congress enacted a short statute (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2255) to even the habeas corpus workload among the federal courts.  That statute included a “Savings Clause,” which allows prisoners to challenge their convictions and sentences in a federal habeas petition when § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” for the task. Since that time — and with increasing frequency — the U.S. Courts of Appeals have developed wildly varying tests to determine when and how § 2255’s Savings Clause applies to prisoners’ attempts to bring federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

In their attempts to understand the Savings Clause’s scope and meaning, the circuit courts have found a myriad ways to navigate the gap between § 2255 and § 2241 and find a path for a petitioner to bring her § 2241 petition.  However, in undertaking their task, the circuit courts have created kaleidoscopic chaos that impairs the ability of prisoners, counsel, and the federal courts themselves to understand when and how a federal prisoner can pass through the Savings Clause and challenge his conviction and sentence in a § 2241 petition.

This article reveals the patchwork of Savings Clause jurisprudence created by the circuit courts. Then, using several realistic hypotheticals, the article explores how geography, circuit precedent, and the nature and timing of intervening interpretations of criminal statutes determine whether and when prisoners who are serving sentences for acts that the law did not criminalize can bring a federal habeas petition and get out of prison. Through the use of these hypotheticals, the reader learns how the fates of federal prisoners (who appear to be similarly-situated) vary wildly depending on such things as where they were sentenced, where they are presently confined, and how and when the court system’s understanding of the underlying criminal statute changed.

January 12, 2014 at 02:20 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Kaleidoscopic Chaos: Understanding the Circuit Courts’ Various Interpretations of § 2255's Savings Clause":


Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB