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
The respondent was represented by counsel Jeffrey L. Fisher, who presented oral arguments on behalf of Mr. Gary.
Background and question before the Court
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the omission of an element during a plea colloquy ever constitutes structural error.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, he also inquired about what is required to satisfy the proposed futility exception, noting that only three circuits have a unanimous view.
What each side argues
Petitioner (United States)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Respondent (Michael Andrew Gary)
According to Mr. Fisher, counsel Fisher argued that a violation of a defendant’s right to self‑representation, even if the defendant is guilty or the conduct is absurd, requires automatic relief, citing the Faretta line of cases.
According to Mr. Fisher, he contended that sufficient notice was not the test applied by the courts, directing the Court to the Hormel decision.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether omission of a plea colloquy element is structural error.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, he also asked what is required to satisfy the proposed futility exception.
Justice Kagan asked whether the Heritage Reporting Corporation was involved.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The government noted that its rule would result in an average of one Section 922 case per district judge, highlighting potential administrative implications.
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.
- c52ffb7f2a23fd3fc474-r1-07f7e570cbfa14bf.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.