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 Supreme Court held that a district court’s mistake of law is correctable under Rule 60(b)(1) and that Kemp’s motion was untimely because the one‑year limitations period had expired.
Justice Gorsuch wrote a dissent noting that the case concerned whether a district court’s mistake of law is correctable under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(6).
Background and question before the Court
Kemp filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in April 2015; the Government argued it was untimely because the one‑year limitations period began when his conviction became final in February 2014.
The Court needed to decide how to interpret Rule 60(b): whether it covers legal errors (mistakes of law) or only factual errors, and which subsection—(b)(1) or (b)(6)—applies.
What each side argues
Dexter Earl Kemp
Kemp argued that the one‑year limitations period for his § 2255 motion should not begin until his codefendants’ rehearing petitions were denied in May 2014, making his April 2015 motion timely.
According to Petitioner (Dexter Earl Kemp), according to Petitioner (Dexter Earl Kemp), kemp maintained that Rule 60(b)(6) governs his case because Rule 60(b)(1) does not cover legal errors or judicial mistakes.
According to Petitioner (Dexter Earl Kemp), according to Petitioner (Dexter Earl Kemp), kemp argued that the only other rules covering legal errors are (b)(4) for void judgments and (b)(5), which are narrow and mutually exclusive with (b)(6).
United States
According to United States, the Government contended that Rule 60(b)(1) applies whenever a party alleges an “obvious” legal error, such as a failure to apply unambiguous law to the record.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked whether the plain meaning of the word “mistake” works for the Court.
Justice Kavanaugh asked what deadline applies to a Rule 60(b)(1) motion and how “reasonable time” should be measured.
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment that Kemp’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion was cognizable but untimely because the one‑year limitations period had expired.
Justice Gorsuch filed a dissent noting that the case was about whether a district court’s mistake of law is correctable under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(6).
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that Rule 60(b)(1) does cover legal errors, allowing parties to seek relief for district‑court mistakes of law, but such motions must be filed within the statutory one‑year period.
According to Justice Gorsuch, the dissent underscores an ongoing debate over the scope of “mistake” in Rule 60, which may influence how future litigants frame challenges to district‑court rulings.
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.
- 620eab52303dba7dae76-r1-97a2279601085a40.pdfopinion
- 682f36dde7ab10df4bf2-r1-bc459edd86d7480f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.