Page:Jones v. Hendrix.pdf/44

12 by a mudslide. The majority’s parsimonious perspective on the meaning of “inadequate or ineffective” is flawed in many respects.

First and foremost, it is entirely atextual. The majority cites exactly zero dictionary definitions of the terms “inadequate” or “ineffective.” And while it does reference an earlier draft of the legislation that became §2255, (quoting Hayman, 342 U. S., at 215, n. 23), it fails to mention that Congress specifically rejected language that embraced the majority’s “impracticable only” proposition. See Hayman, 342 U. S., at 215, n. 23; In re Dorsainvil, 119 F. 3d 245, 250 (CA3 1997).

Furthermore, while the majority opinion accurately recites the history and purpose of §2255, see, it ignores the import of that history. As explained above, when Congress enacted §2255 in 1948, it intended to ensure equivalence between traditional habeas and the new §2255 mechanism for postconviction review. Accordingly, Congress inserted the saving clause to ensure that certain pre-existing postconviction claims (say, a claim of statutory innocence) could still be heard even if the statutory language Congress was adopting inadvertently barred them. And Congress preserved the language of §2255(e)—the language that performs the equalizing function—in 1996, even as it made other significant changes to §2255.

Ignoring all this, the majority grounds its analysis of §2255(e) in a scattershot of lower court cases that the majority claims “[t]raditionally” viewed the saving clause as solving only for practical filing problems. To be sure, a handful of lower courts applied the saving clause where the sentencing court was dissolved. Ibid. But lower courts have also “[t]raditionally,”, treated the saving clause as permitting individuals with previously unavailable statutory innocence claims to file habeas petitions