A (0:00)

The U.S. supreme Court just issued a new decision which expands your and my right to appeal a federal prison sentence. Now, I'm sure most people watching this won't ever become a federal prisoner, but if you or someone you know does, they will now have more rights. Given the fact that the U.S. supreme Court just threw out a significant limit on federal prisoner appeals, let's go through the details of this case together, beginning with the details of the case in question. Back in the year 2008, a Florida man named Michael Bowie participated in an armed robbery of an armored car in Palm Beach County. He was caught, he was indicted, and he wound up pleading guilty to three separate offenses. Firstly, he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit a robbery under the Hobbs Act. Secondly, he pled guilty to actually committing the robbery robbery under the Hobbs Act. And thirdly, he pled guilty to using, carrying, brandishing, or discharging a firearm during and in relation to a quote, unquote, crime of violence. Now, the first two offenses, conspiracy to commit robbery, as well as attempting to commit the actual robbery, fell under the Hobbs Act. For your reference, the Hobbs act is a federal statute which prohibits actual or attempted robbery which affects interstate commerce. However, the third offense fell under a different federal law. The third offense, which was again, using, carrying, brandishing, and or discharging a firearm in relation to a violent crime, fell under section 924 of title 18. And this distinction matters for two reasons. Firstly, because of that other law, what Mr. Bowie did was classified as a crime of violence, and it automatically added 10 years to his sentence. And so, in total, Mr. Bowie was sentenced to 24 years behind bars. 14 of those years came in relation to the Hobbs Acts crime, which were robbery and conspiracy, while the other 10 years came because it was designated as a crime of violence. However, the second reason this all matters is that while he was behind bars, the US Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that Hobbs act robbery should not be considered a crime of violence. Specifically, in 2019, the US Supreme Court ruled in a case titled United States vs Davis, that Hobbs act robbery should not be considered a crime of violence. And then in 2022, there was a second Supreme Court case called United States vs Taylor, which found that attempted robbery, as defined by the Hobbs act also did not qualify as a crime of violence. And so, basically what happened is that while Mr. Bowie was already sentenced and already sitting in prison, the US Supreme Court ruled that the kind of crime Mr. Bowie was involved in did not actually qualify as a crime of violence under that statute, meaning if he were to be sentenced today, he would probably not get that extra 10 years. He would have only gotten 14 years behind bars rather than 24. And so very understandably, Mr. Bowie wanted to go back to the court and, and challenge his sentence based on the new Supreme Court precedents. But he failed. And the reason he failed, it's a little bit technical. And so what I'm going to do is I'm going to read to you an explanation from a Slate article that'll give you sort of the broad outline of what happened. And then after I read it to you, I'll explain it in a bit more simple terms. So here is the explanation. Quote. After Bowie was sentenced, the Supreme Court dismantled the legal basis to for treating those crimes as violent. In 2019, the court followed with United States vs Davis, which struck down part of the crimes of violence statute as unconstitutionally vague. In 2022, the court followed with United States vs Taylor, holding that attempted robbery as defined in the Hobbs act does not qualify under the remaining part of the statute. The 11th Circuit has also held that conspiracy does not qualify either. If Bowie were sentenced today, his firearm enhancement would almost certainly disappear. But post conviction law does not move in straight lines. Federal prisoners typically get one opportunity to challenge their convictions or sentences. A second or successive motion is permitted only if the prisoner can show either newly discovered evidence establishing innocence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court. That framework created a procedural trap for Bowie. After the Davis ruling, Bowie sought relief, arguing that his firearm conviction rested on an unconstitutional basis. The 11th Circuit rejected the claim because at the time of his conviction, Circuit precedent still treated attempted Hobbs act robbery as a qualifying crime for a sentence enhancement, even under the Davis precedent. Even if the portion of the statute struck down in Davis was an invalid reason for sentence enhancement, the court concluded that the conviction survived anyway under the separate portion of the statute. Then the Taylor decision arrived and eliminated that fallback theory. When Bowie returned to court, the 11th Circuit blocked him again, this time on procedural grounds. His Davis claim had already been raised once in a prior motion and was therefore barred as an old claim. And so maybe that was a bit of legalese, but you basically see the broad outline of what happened here. Shortly after Mr. Bowie was convicted, the US Supreme Court issued their first decision in that Davis case, which dismantled part of the crime of violence upgrade. Mr. Bowie. He then immediately filed an appeal to his sentence. But he failed because at the time, the courts were still using basically an ambiguity in the law to keep those charge upgrades in place. But then in 2022. When the U.S. supreme Court issued their second ruling in the Taylor case, clarifying that no Hobbs act robbery should not be treated as a crime of violence, Mr. Bowie, he tried to appeal once again, but he was denied the ability to do so because he had already once before, unsuccessfully tried to appeal his sentence. Now, again, this part is a little bit technical, but basically because Mr. Bowie had already filed one post conviction challenge, he filed something called a 2255 motion, that motion failed, and now he was trying to file a second one. And the law, federal law, has strict rules about allowing a prisoner to do something like this to basically submit repeated challenges to their sentences. And this is all based on, quote, a provision of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act of 1996 that defines when prisoners could be freed or have their sentences reduced through habeas corpus. In plain, plain English, what this essentially means is that federal courts have a special gatekeeping process in place in order to prevent prisoners from clogging up the system with just endless appeals. And so in this case, There was a three judge panel sitting on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals who first had to authorize. They had to basically grant Mr. Bowie the ability to file a second challenge, but they denied his request. And so Mr. Bowie, he filed another appeal that this time all the way up with the US Supreme Court basically asking the Supreme Court two legal questions. Firstly was whether or not a rule like this, which basically blocks repeat claims from state prisoners, actually applies to federal prisoners like what Mr. Bowie is. And secondly, he was asking the Supreme Court whether or not they can even review decisions like these by appeals courts when the appeals court denies the permission for a prisoner to file a second challenge. Because there's a bit of ambiguity in the law, in that 1996 law. And it might be read as saying that the Supreme Court actually cannot take up these appeals. But Mr. Bowie's legal team was arguing that that's basically a limit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which would be unconstitutional in this case. And so essentially those were the two questions. The case was taken up by the US Supreme Court, and just earlier this week, they issued a ruling in favor of Mr. Bowie. Specifically in a 5, 4 split decision, U.S. justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, John Roberts, and Sonia Sotomayor all ruling to throw out this procedural limit. Writing for the majority of the court, you had Ms. Sonia Sotomayor say the following about the first question that was raised by Mr. Bowie. Quote, if Bowie were in state custody, then the federal government would Be correct. He is not. Section 2244 does not prevent the Court's review. The because the certiorari bar does not clearly apply to motions filed by federal prisoners like Bowie. Now, that part is understandably a little technical, but Congress basically wrote two separate systems for prisoners to be able to challenge their convictions. There's one system for state prisoners and another one for federal prisoners. And the anti terrorism law of 1996, that system, it only applies to state prisoners. And so Mr. Bowie being a federal prisoner and actually does not have the same strict limitations that it would impose on a state prisoner. Secondly, the other question that was raised, the question of whether or not the Supreme Court actually even had jurisdiction in this particular case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the following in the majority opinion, quote, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction or authority over any case in the courts of appeal upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree. Given that broad grant of jurisdiction, Congress must speak clearly if it seeks to impose exceptions to that jurisdiction. There was no clear indication that Congress stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction, and therefore the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to take up the case in the first place. And so there you have it. Mr. Bowie, he won his appeal, and his case has now been remanded or sent down to the lower courts, where he can continue to appeal his actual sentence, which, given the facts of the case, will almost certainly get reduced by 10 years. And you might not agree with it. I mean, after all, at least according to the court documents I read in the case, he actually shot two guards while trying to rob the vehicle. But according to the law, his sentence should not have been upgraded to a crime of violence. But really, his specific case aside, the new decision by the US Supreme Court, aside from Mr. Bowie, it secures all of our rights to appeal what we believe is an incorrect sentence, which ties into our Fifth Amendment rights to due process, as well as to our 8th amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. And so let me know what you think about this case in the comments section below. I mean, maybe setting aside the specific case of Mr. Bowie, who you think maybe he should be sitting in prison for 24 years for what he did? Setting that case aside, do you agree with this decision which allows federal prisoners to appeal their case multiple times if the facts on the ground change? Because again, it's important to sort of set aside the. The case that brought it up to the Supreme Court, because you might look at it and go, hey, that's a Crime of violence. I agree with it, but maybe under the law, as it's currently written, maybe it needs to be changed. But as it's currently formulated, that technically wouldn't be classified as a crime of violence. But that case secured our rights to be able to file multiple appeals to our sentences if we believe that we were convicted or sentenced incorrectly. And so let me know your thoughts in the comments section below. It's kind of, I don't know, maybe for some people it would be a bitter pill to swallow, but it is what it is. And also, while you're making your way down there to the comment section, do smash those like and subscribe buttons. Of course, that way this video can reach out for more people via these. Valgrind, thank you for that. Two other things. One is I hope I presented the case clearly because honestly, this was a very kind of tough case. A lot of legalese I had to strip down a lot of kind of nuance and detail. Hope it still made sense. I'm sure if anyone watching this is a lawyer or used to be a lawyer, you might be like, Roman, you like you really, you know, you botch this technical aspect. I hope I got the essence correct, though, and I believe I did. I spent quite a bit of time trying to get the essence correct. I did strip out a lot of the technical details because I. Because otherwise the video will be too long and it might get too confusing. If you happen to be a lawyer, leave your comments in the comment section below. If you think I got something wrong, I would appreciate it. I'm sure everybody else would as well. And the second thing is, a lot of these Supreme Court decisions, they are very technical, but when you strip them down, they are important to our lives, whether it's to our lives, maybe to our friends and family who find themselves in a bad situation and. And not even in this case, which, you know, applies to prisoners, but in many cases. And given that fact, we here at the Epoch Times, we put together a phenomenal magazine detailing the most important Supreme Court decisions from last year's full term. And so we basically went in, we took the most important Supreme Court cases and we diluted them, dissected them, and diluted them down to their essence. What the case was about, what the issues of play were, and what the ruling actually means in our everyday lives. And not the high falutin legalese, but what it practically means in our lives. If you want to get access to that magazine from the last term, from the 2025 term, basically breaking down all the most important cases. You can get it for free by trying the Epic Times. I'll throw a link. You can find it down at the top of the description box below. You just click on it. You try the Epic Times. A subscription barely costs anything, but you'll get all the news, all the videos, the infographics, the documentaries, all the articles will put out there. You get the full subscription package and on top of that, you'll get that magazine which breaks down the Supreme Court decisions, what they mean for you and your family. It's kind of a great package in my opinion, because it's sort of what the essence of the Epoch Times is. We try to take all these, like, news items, news stories floating around, strip out all the not nonsense, but strip out all the things that don't matter, and report to you what actually does matter to you and your family in a practical way. So check it out. If you're interested, just click that button below. Subscribe to the Epoch Times. You will get that magazine to check out so you can actually, you know, without having to dig in for yourself, find out what the last term, what laws changed, what interpretations changed, and what it actually means for you and your family. So check it out. The link will be down there in the description box below. And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epitimes. Stay informed and most importantly, stay free.