Whether §2255 is inadequate or ineffective when binding precedent forecloses relief even when a meritorious claim of actual innocence is proven

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. A Federal Court may only entertain a federal prisoner’s habeas corpus petition when a “remedy by motion [to vacate] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [the prisoner’s] detention”. 28 U.S.C. §2255(e). Amodeo presented a presumptively-true well-documented actual-innocence claim. The Eleventh Circuit held that §2255 is adequate and effective to test the legality of his detention, even though its binding precedent forecloses relief should Amodeo prove his claim. Is §2255 inadequate or ineffective when binding precedent forbids relief even when a meritorious claim is proven? 2. This Court’s jurisprudence leaves unanswered whether the Constitution provides habeas corpus for a free-standing claim of actual innocence. Mcquiggin v. Perkins, 568 U.S. 977 (2012). Amodeo presents a presumptively true, well-documented claim of factual innocence (not merely legal) innocence. The Eleventh Circuit does not allow relief, under either §2241 or §2255, for a claim of factual innocence. Does the Constitution recognize a right to habeas corpus relief based on a freestanding claim of actual innocence? i