Whether the government should be foreclosed from relying on prior litigation that it concedes incorrectly invoked a procedural bar to review on the merits to argue that the district court lacked habeas-corpus-jurisdiction because the petitioner had a prior adequate-and-effective-opportunity-to-test-the-legality-of-his-detention-under-28-usc-2255e

QUESTION PRESENTED Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), habeas corpus petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of federal convictions can obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ifthe remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” This case asks whether a petitioner has an adequate or effective shot at § 2255(a) relief when prior litigation was procedurally barred on grounds that the government later conceded was wrong. Mr. Lewis asserted that his prior federal conviction was invalid after Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014). The government has conceded that Burrage is a substantive and retroactive decision in five Circuits, but successfully argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Lewis’s § 2241 petition because prior claims had been barred on grounds of Burrage’s supposed non-retroactivity. The question presented is: Whether the government should be foreclosed from relying on prior litigation that it concedes incorrectly invoked a procedural bar to review on the merits to argue that the district court lacked habeas corpus jurisdiction because the petitioner had a prior adequate and effective opportunity to test the legality of his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)?