Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Greer v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Greer v. United States
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: April 20, 2021
Decided: June 14, 2021
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Sonia Sotomayor

Greer v. United States is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

In a unanimous ruling, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's ruling, holding that in felon-in-possession cases, a Rehaif error is not a basis for plain-error relief unless the defendant first makes a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that they would have presented evidence at trial that they did not in fact know that they were a felon. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. The court's opinion in Greer was consolidated with its opinion in the case United States v. Gary, though the cases were argued separately.[1]


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2018, Gregory Greer was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code. Greer appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, arguing that the law was unconstitutional, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States. The 11th Circuit affirmed the conviction. Greer appealed to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS vacated the 11th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for reconsideration, based on its decision in Rehaif v. United States. On remand, the 11th Circuit affirmed Greer's conviction, holding that unlike the plaintiff in Rehaif, Greer did know that he was a felon when he possessed the firearm and therefore could not establish that any errors during the district court proceedings affected his substantial rights.[2] Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issues: It concerned Title 18 of the United States Code and the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States.
  • The questions presented: "Whether when applying plain-error review based upon an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, a circuit court of appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial?"[3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's ruling.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[2]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    In 2018, Gregory Greer was convicted in U.S. district court for violating Title 18 of the United States Code––for being a felon in possession of a firearm––and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. Greer appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, arguing that the relevant law was unconstitutional because the government was not required to prove that the firearm he possessed had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.[2] The 11th Circuit conducted a plain-error review of the district court's ruling.[4] The 11th Circuit affirmed Greer's conviction and sentencing, holding that there was no plain error during the district court proceedings since the firearm was manufactured in Connecticut, shipped to New York, and possessed by Greer in Florida, constituting interstate commerce.[2]

    Following the appeal, Greer petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review. The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the 11th Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Rehaif v. United States.[2] Greer argued that the 11th Circuit either vacate his conviction or grant him a new trial based on Rehaif. The government argued that the record established that Greer he knew he was a felon when he was in possession of the firearm, unlike the plaintiff in Rehaif. In a per curiam opinion, the 11th circuit affirmed Greer's conviction.[2]

    Rehaif v. United States

    Rehaif v. United States was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 23, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term.[5] It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.[6] On June 21, 2019, the court reversed and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In a 7-2 opinion, the court held that in order to convict an individual of unlawful possession of a firearm, prosecutors must prove the individual knew they possessed a firearm and knew that they were barred from doing so.[7] Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court.

    In his opinion, Justice Breyer wrote:[7]

    “ The question here concerns the scope of the word “knowingly.” Does it mean that the Government must prove that a defendant knew both that he engaged in the relevant conduct (that he possessed a firearm) and also that he fell within the relevant status (that he was a felon, an alien unlawfully in this country, or the like)? We hold that the word “knowingly” applies both to the defendant’s conduct and to the defendant’s status. To convict a defendant, the Government therefore must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.[8] ”
    —Justice Stephen Breyer

    To read the full opinion in the case Rehaif v. United States, click here.

    Title 18, United States Code

    Section 922(g) of Title 18 of the United States Code reads:[9]

    “ (g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

    ...
    (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

    to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.[8]
    		 ”
    —18 U.S.C. 922(g)

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether when applying plain-error review based upon an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, a circuit court of appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial?[8] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[11]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous ruling, the court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's ruling, holding that in felon-in-possession cases, a Rehaif error is not a basis for plain-error relief unless the defendant first makes a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that they would have presented evidence at trial that they did not in fact know that they were a felon. Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. The court's opinion in Greer was consolidated with its opinion in the case United States v. Gary, though the cases were argued separately.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “ Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms by certain categories of individuals, including by those who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. See 18 U.S.C. §922(g), 924(a)(2). In Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. ___ (2019), this Court clarified the mens rea requirement for firearms-possession offenses, including the felon-in-possession offense. In felon-in-possession cases after Rehaif, the Government must prove not only that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm, but also that he knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm. ...


    ... The bottom line of these two cases is straightforward. In felon-in-possession cases, a Rehaif error is not a basis for plain-error relief unless the defendant first makes a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he would have presented evidence at trial that he did not in fact know he was a felon. When a defendant advances such an argument or representation on appeal, the court must determine whether the defendant has carried the burden of showing a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of the district court proceeding would have been different. Because Greer and Gary did not make any such argument or representation on appeal in these cases, they have not satisfied the plain-error test.*

    We affirm the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and we reverse the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.[1]

    In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:

    “ For years, all 12 Courts of Appeals with criminal jurisdiction agreed that a defendant need not know he is a felon to be guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). This Court came to the opposite conclusion in Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. ___ (2019). Gregory Greer’s and Michael Gary’s felon-in-possession convictions were not yet final when Rehaif was decided. The District Court did not inform Gary of the knowledge-of-status element at his plea colloquy, and Greer’s District Court did not instruct the jury that it had to make a knowledge-of-status finding to convict. Neither Greer nor Gary objected to those omissions. The question now is whether they have shown that their convictions should be vacated under plain-error review.


    I agree with the Court that Greer is not entitled to such relief because he cannot show that the trial error affected his substantial rights. I write separately to highlight two limits on today’s decision. First, the Court’s analysis in Greer’s case does not extend to the distinct context of harmless-error review, which applies when defendants contemporaneously object at trial. Second, the knowledge-of-status element is an element just like any other. The Government must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and defendants seeking relief based on Rehaif errors bear only the usual burden on plain-error review. With that understanding, I join the portions of the Court’s opinion addressing Greer’s case and affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

    As to Gary, I agree with the Court that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that the District Court’s failure to inform Gary of the knowledge-of-status element automatically entitled him to relief on plain-error review. Unlike this Court, I would not decide in the first instance whether Gary can make a case-specific showing that the error affected his substantial rights. I would instead vacate the judgment below and remand for the Fourth Circuit to address that question. I therefore respectfully dissent from the judgment as to Gary.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[12]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Supreme Court, Greer v. United States, decided June 14, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, United States v. Gregory Greer, decided January 8, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Greer v. United States: Questions presented," accessed January 9, 2021
    4. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Rule 52. Harmless and Plain Error," accessed January 11, 2021
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Rehaif v. United States, decided June 21, 2019
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Docket No. 17-9560," accessed March 20, 2019
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Rehaif v. United States," June 21, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts," accessed January 11, 2021
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed April 20, 2021
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," accessed April 20, 2021
    12. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Greer_v._United_States&oldid=9117184"