This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner, the case addresses whether a procedural right can be waived.
The petitioner argues that even if rights can be waived, a structural error makes waiver irrelevant.
According to Mr. Green, the discussion includes whether statutory rights, such as the right to appeal, are constitutional.
According to Justice (unidentified), according to Justice (unidentified), the case also concerns the composition of a panel with Article III and Article I judges under a statute.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice (unidentified), according to Justice (unidentified), an unidentified justice asked about the merits of a constitutional question concerning the panel’s statutory composition.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the court should consider the constitutional integrity of an Article III court beyond the litigant’s rights.
Justice Stevens asked why the Ninth Circuit might require written waivers from Guam lawyers if the right is waivable.
Justice Souter asked why a practice would not be perpetuated if it is waivable.
According to Justice, justices questioned why unpublished decisions lack precedential value.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner, mR. GREEN says there is no waiver because no record evidence indicates a waiver.
According to Petitioner, mR. GREEN argues that the decision is void and that structural error makes any waiver irrelevant.
According to Mr. Green, mR. GREEN states that the right to appeal is a statutory right, not a constitutional right.
Respondent
According to Ms. Millett, ms. Millett explains that the fourth prong of the plain‑error analysis concerns whether the error seriously affected the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
What happened at oral argument
Petitioner’s MR. GREEN argued that there was no waiver and that structural error rendered any waiver irrelevant.
Respondent’s Ms. Millett contended that a statutory violation occurred without challenge and discussed the plain‑error fourth prong.
The transcript records that Ms. Millett presented oral argument on behalf of the respondent.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 736be7177564b706942e-r1-f706eabf998962a2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.