593 U.S. 503
SCOTUS2021Background
- Rehaif v. United States changed the mens rea for 18 U.S.C. §922(g): the Government must prove the defendant knew he was a felon when possessing a firearm.
- Gregory Greer was tried by jury for felon-in-possession; the district court did not instruct the jury on the Rehaif knowledge-of-status element and Greer was convicted. He did not contemporaneously object.
- Michael Gary pleaded guilty to two felon-in-possession counts; the plea colloquy omitted any statement that a jury would need to find knowledge of felon status. He did not object at the time.
- After Rehaif, both raised mens rea claims on appeal: the Eleventh Circuit denied Greer plain-error relief; the Fourth Circuit vacated Gary’s plea, treating the omission as structural error.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that unpreserved Rehaif errors are reviewed under Rule 52(b) plain-error principles and are not structural per se.
- The Court required defendants seeking plain-error relief to show on appeal (by argument/representation) that they would have presented evidence at trial or declined to plead because they did not know they were felons; Greer and Gary made no such case-specific showing, so relief was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable standard for unpreserved Rehaif claims | Greer/Gary: their Rehaif errors warrant relief (Greer asked new trial; Gary sought to vacate plea) | Government: unpreserved claims are forfeited; review under Rule 52(b) plain-error | Forfeited claims get plain-error review under Rule 52(b); defendants bear burden to show prejudice |
| Substantial-rights/practical showing required under plain-error after Rehaif | Defendants: omission of element itself undermines conviction/plea | Government: defendant must show a reasonable probability the outcome would differ (acquittal or not pleading) | Defendant must show on appeal a case-specific reasonable probability outcome would differ and must make argument/representation they would have presented evidence of lack of knowledge |
| Futility exception to contemporaneous-objection requirement | Gary: objecting at plea would have been futile given pre-Rehaif uniform precedent; thus harmless-error should apply | Government: no textual or precedential basis for futility exception; unpreserved errors go to Rule 52(b) | Rejected futility exception; preservation rules control and plain-error applies to unpreserved claims |
| Whether Rehaif errors are structural (automatic reversal) | Gary: omission of knowledge-of-status at plea is structural and requires automatic vacatur | Government: omission of a single element is a discrete error, not structural | Rehaif errors are not structural; they do not require automatic reversal and are subject to plain-error analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (establishes knowledge-of-status element for §922(g) offenses)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (explains plain-error review under Rule 52(b))
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (describes the four-prong plain-error framework and "reasonable probability" standard)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (Rule 52(b) is permissive and addresses forfeited errors)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (appellate courts may consider the entire record on review)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant bears burden to show entitlement to plain-error relief)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (preservation requirement applies despite circuit splits)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural-error doctrine is narrowly confined)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omission of an element from jury instructions is not necessarily structural)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (appellate consideration of record and harmless-error principles)
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (1906) (syllabus is not part of the Court's opinion)
- United States v. Lavalais, 960 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2020) (illustrates difficulty of showing prejudice after Rehaif because felons typically know their status)