October Term 2004 · Docket 04-368
Does destroying documents before a formal proceeding violate federal obstruction law?
Arthur Andersen LLP and the United States dispute whether destroying documents before a formal proceeding starts constitutes a federal crime.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Maureen Mahoney argued that destroying documents before a formal proceeding was not a crime in 2001.
Maureen Mahoney stated that the SEC investigation was the only official proceeding.
Michael Dreeben argued that Arthur Andersen's conduct explains why Congress enacted the statute.
Michael Dreeben asserted that the statute protects against anticipatory document destruction.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-21 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 23-55 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 23-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Arthur Andersen LLP seeks to overturn a lower-court conviction. The United States wants to uphold that conviction. The case tests the scope of federal obstruction statutes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-21 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 27, 2005.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 23-55 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 23-55
What each side wants
Arthur Andersen LLP wants the Supreme Court to reverse its lower-court conviction.
The United States wants the Supreme Court to affirm the lower-court conviction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-21 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-21
What each side says
Arthur Andersen LLP argues that destroying documents before a formal proceeding starts is not a federal crime.
The United States argues that destroying documents in anticipation of a proceeding violates federal obstruction laws.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-21 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-21
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if violating other provisions still counts as a violation.
Justice O'Connor asked if the safe-harbor provision negates the statute's effect.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 23-55 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 23-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-9
Why it matters
This case defines the legal boundary for document destruction. It determines when corporate actions become federal crimes. It impacts how companies manage records during investigations. It clarifies the scope of federal obstruction statutes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-21 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-21
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 37-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 37-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 23-55 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 23-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-21 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 9-19 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 9-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-21 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.