The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a Florida man's challenge to his 24-year bank robbery sentence, a case that aims to resolve a circuit split over whether federal prisoners can file multiple motions to vacate their convictions.

The justices' order list granted certiorari to federal prisoner Michael Bowe, who pled guilty in 2009 to attempted robbery of an armored car outside a Wachovia Bank in West Palm Beach, Florida. Bowe has filed numerous appeals over the years as the precedent around firearm sentencing has evolved.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected Bowe's latest challenge by saying the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which bars repeat habeas corpus petitions by state prisoners, also applies to federal inmates. The Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth circuits have made similar findings, but the Fourth, Sixth and Ninth circuits disagree.

"The Section 2244(b)(1) question presented here warrants review," Bowe wrote in his petition to the justices. "The parties agree that the circuits are divided 6-3 on whether the bar in Section 2244(b)(1) applies only to state-prisoner habeas corpus applications filed under Section 2254, or whether it also applies to federal-prisoner motions to vacate filed under Section 2255."

Now the justices have agreed to resolve this circuit split. Bowe is asking the court to hold that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is unambiguous in barring only repetitions of state prisoner appeals, saying the circuits who've ruled otherwise "have substituted their policy judgment for Congress' judgment in the plain text."

The government's response opposed the cert grant, saying language in the act divests the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over these types of midlevel appeals court rulings.

The U.S. Department of Justice also argued that new precedent should not change Bowe's 24-year prison term for the bank robbery. The government did, however, share Bowe's view as to the underlying circuit split.

"The government agrees with petitioner that Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to Section 2255 motions, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise," it wrote.

Counsel and representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

Bowe is represented by Andrew L. Adler of the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Southern District of Florida.

The government is represented by Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Nicole M. Argentieri and Ann O'Connell Adams of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is Michael Bowe v. U.S., case number 24-5438, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

--Editing by Brian Baresch.