We will hear argument first this morning in case 245438, Beau v. United States.

Mr. Adler.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, by its plain terms, 2244B1 applies to habeas corpus applications under Section 2254.

It therefore does not apply to motions to vacate under Section 2254. It therefore does not apply to motions to vacate under Section 2255.

After all, those motions have their own separate gatekeeping requirements. Resisting this

straightforward conclusion, the Court-appointed amicus proposes an elaborate theory that no

court in the country has adopted. But the plain

text, context, and structure of the statute may clear that B1 does not apply to federal

prisoners. This court has jurisdiction to so hold. We have offered several arguments for why

2244B3E does not bar review here, But the simplest one is this. The subject of our

cert petition was not the denial of an authorization. This argument is based on Castro and the passage

on page 380 that starts with the sentence, even if for argument's sake. The Court assumed that there was a denial of an authorization because the Court of Appeals had

stated that the prisoner could not satisfy the gatekeeping requirements.

But this Court unanimously held that this denial was not the subject of the cert petition

because the prisoner sought review only on the antecedent

question of whether he had to satisfy the gatekeeping requirements at all.

There is no material distinction between that question reviewed in Castro and the question

here, which is whether petitioner must satisfy the gatekeeping requirement in B-1 at all.

Because there is jurisdiction, the Court should seize this opportunity to resolve the

six-three split that has evaded the Court's review for the past several years, and that

will otherwise go unresolved.

I welcome the Court's questions.

...