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
Background and question before the Court
Justice O'Connor asked whether Section 1519 was at issue.
Justice Scalia asked how the term “knowingly” should be interpreted.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia referenced subsection 3(a).
What each side argues
Arthur Andersen LLP (Petitioner) Position
Ms. Mahoney argued that a certain document is harmful and should be kept out of the proceeding, describing the Government’s definition of “corrupt” as attempting to get another person to withhold a document in order to impede the fact‑finding ability of the decision‑maker.
What happened at oral argument
Justice O'Connor asked whether Section 1519 was at issue.
Justice Scalia asked how the term “knowingly” should be interpreted.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia referenced subsection 3(a).
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.
- c3cdfd9a0b6577ea6eda-r1-c6eb336ad7603a0d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.