Alfred J. Walker v. N. C. English, Warden

Federal criminal defendants are entitled to challenge the validity of their conviction and sentence by means of a direct appeal and a motion for postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Those efforts sometimes fail because erroneous circuit precedent interpreting a federal statute forecloses the defendant’s legitimate claim for relief. This gives rise to an obvious injustice when a later decision by this Court or the circuit overturns the erroneous precedent. In those circumstances, the prisoner cannot again seek relief under Section 2255, which generally bars second or successive applications. As the government has repeatedly recognized, a deep circuit split has arisen over whether such a prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Nine courts of appeals hold that such petitions are authorized by Section 2255(e), which allows a prisoner to pursue such habeas relief if the remedy provided by Section 2255 “appears . . . inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Two other courts of appeals, including the Tenth Circuit below, hold that the prisoner may not use Section 2241, and thus that he cannot challenge his unlawful detention. The question presented here is: May a federal prisoner file a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in order to raise arguments that were foreclosed by binding (but erroneous) circuit precedent at the time of his direct appeal and original application for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but which are meritorious in light of a subsequent decision overturning that erroneous precedent?