## Facts

- Ellis Wayne Felker, a Georgia prisoner sentenced to death for murder and related offenses, exhausted direct review and multiple rounds of state postconviction proceedings.
- Felker’s first federal habeas corpus petition was denied.
- While Felker awaited execution, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which tightened rules for “second or successive” federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
- AEDPA required a prisoner seeking to file a successive petition to obtain authorization from a three-judge panel of the court of appeals, and it provided that the panel’s authorization decision “shall not be appealable” and may not be the subject of certiorari. § 2244(b)(3)(E).
- Felker moved in the Eleventh Circuit for authorization to file a second federal habeas petition; the Eleventh Circuit denied authorization under AEDPA’s gatekeeping and substantive limits.
- Felker then filed in the Supreme Court a pleading seeking (1) review of the Eleventh Circuit’s denial and (2) relief via an original writ of habeas corpus, along with a stay of execution.

## Issues

1. Whether AEDPA Title I bars or repeals the Supreme Court’s authority to entertain an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
2. Whether AEDPA’s restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions, including the gatekeeping mechanism, violate the Suspension Clause as applied.
3. Whether § 2244(b)(3)(E)’s bar on appeal and certiorari from the court of appeals’ gatekeeping decision unconstitutionally restricts the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously upheld AEDPA’s relevant provisions as applied and denied relief.
- The Court held that AEDPA does not eliminate the Supreme Court’s original habeas jurisdiction, though AEDPA’s successive-petition standards inform whether original relief should be granted.
- The Court held that AEDPA’s successive-petition limits do not constitute an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.
- The Court held that Congress permissibly limited the Court’s appellate review of gatekeeping decisions under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause, without stripping the Court of its original habeas authority.
- The Court treated Felker’s request for appellate or certiorari review of the Eleventh Circuit’s gatekeeping denial as barred by § 2244(b)(3)(E) and declined to grant original habeas relief because his claims did not satisfy AEDPA’s demanding standards for successive petitions.

## Legal Principles

- AEDPA’s bar on appellate or certiorari review of a court of appeals’ gatekeeping decision under § 2244(b)(3)(E) is a valid exception to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Article III.
- AEDPA does not repeal or preclude the Supreme Court’s original habeas jurisdiction absent clear statutory language addressing that power.
- Restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions, including gatekeeping authorization and heightened substantive requirements, do not violate the Suspension Clause where federal habeas review remains available in meaningful, though limited, forms.
- Even when original habeas jurisdiction exists, the Supreme Court may treat AEDPA’s successive-petition standards as a benchmark in deciding whether to exercise that extraordinary remedy.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained AEDPA’s regime for second or successive federal habeas petitions, including the statute’s bar on Supreme Court review of court-of-appeals gatekeeping determinations, while confirming that the Court retains original habeas jurisdiction that it will exercise only under stringent standards consistent with AEDPA.


Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996)