October Term 2012 · Docket 11-9307
Should the Court review legal errors that affect substantial rights but lack a clear record?
The dispute centers on whether the Court should review legal errors that affect substantial rights but lack a clear record.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
Ms. Gilley argued the case involves a small subset of Rule 52(b) cases.
Mr. Wall emphasized the need for a contemporaneous objection.
Justice Scalia questioned how the Court would decide whether to take such a case.
Justice Kennedy noted the number of presented cases could be substantial.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of plain-error review under Rule 52(b).
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2012.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Henderson wants the Court to review the legal error despite the record gap.
The United States wants the Court to deny review due to the record gap.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
What each side says
Henderson argues the error affects substantial rights and warrants review.
The United States argues the record lacks the necessary clarity for review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if the rule would create a new issue in every case.
Justice Alito asked what purpose the plain-error rule serves without the word plain.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-21
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of appellate review for legal errors. It determines how courts handle records that lack clarity. It affects the finality of lower-court decisions. It shapes the burden on litigants to preserve issues.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
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 3, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-47 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 5-21
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 27, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
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.