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 concerns whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should apply when reliance is on precedent that may be altered retroactively.
Petitioner argues that the good faith exception, as labeled, has the same substance and effect as a retroactivity decision.
According to Michael R. Dreeben (respondent counsel), according to Michael R. Dreeben (respondent counsel), the United States contends that the exclusionary rule should be limited to situations necessary to deter police misconduct and shape police conduct.
Background and question before the Court
The Court has not applied the good faith exception in this setting.
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner, the petitioner asserts that the case raises the intersection of retroactivity and the good faith exception, and that the Court should reverse and hold the good faith exception does not apply to reliance on precedent.
The petitioner says the government's use of the good‑faith label is actually a retroactivity argument.
According to Petitioner, the petitioner notes that the Eleventh Circuit had not expanded Belton, only made routine applications of it.
The petitioner argues that the exclusionary rule is a remedy in some cases and a necessary cost.
According to Petitioner (Orin S. Kerr), according to Petitioner (Orin S. Kerr), the petitioner emphasizes that the plain error doctrine largely addresses the government’s concerns about the exclusionary rule.
United States
According to Michael R. Dreeben (respondent counsel), according to Michael R. Dreeben (respondent counsel), respondent counsel argues that the exclusionary rule should be limited to situations where it is necessary to further the deterrent purpose of the rule and to shape police conduct.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Scalia asked whether applying the good‑faith rule would deny retroactive effect to the altered judgment and whether the good‑faith exception is a separate question from retroactivity.
Justice Kennedy asked why the Court is not simply following the good‑faith rule here.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether the petitioner’s argument applies when the precedent relied upon is from a circuit or state court.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired whether the Eleventh Circuit’s line reflects retroactivity precedent.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan raised concerns about incentives and suggested a limited rule applying the exclusionary rule only in the present case and not on direct appeal.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether it is worthwhile to litigate the difference between zero and remote in determining the rule to apply.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned a regime where the exclusionary rule would apply depending on whether the law was clear in a circuit, raising concerns about qualified immunity.
Justice Alito followed up on Justice Kagan’s suggestion, asking what is wrong with retaining an exception to the good‑faith exception for the defendant in this case.
Justice Scalia asked whether the Court would grant the first request and deny all the rest.
- [1] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 4
- [2] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 5
- [3] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 8
- [4] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 10
- [5] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 13
- [6] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 20
- [7] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 28
- [8] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 36
- [9] fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdf, p. 38
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.
- fa29522961612e52a859-r1-1812768977ea14d5.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.