Greer v. United States

The decision conditions plain-error relief on defendants demonstrating they were unaware of their felon status. This raises a liberty concern because it imposes an additional evidentiary burden on defendants seeking to correct judicial errors that may have violated their rights. The requirement to affirmatively prove lack of knowledge about one's own legal status creates a structural disadvantage for defendants asserting protection against arbitrary conviction. While the ruling frames this as procedural integrity, it functionally restricts the scope of judicial review available to protect individual liberty from error.

The decision establishes a consistent standard requiring all defendants to demonstrate unawareness of felon status to obtain plain-error relief. On its face, this applies equally to all defendants in similar circumstances. However, the equality principle requires equal application of the rule itself, not equal outcomes. The uniform mens rea requirement satisfies formal equality, though the burden of proof may create disparate practical effects. Without evidence that the ruling applies differently to similarly situated defendants based on protected characteristics or status, the equality principle is neither clearly advanced nor clearly violated.

The consent principle traces democratic authorization through elected branches and the electorate. A Supreme Court ruling interpreting the scope of plain-error relief and mens rea requirements operates within the judicial function of construing law already enacted by Congress and ratified constitutional text. The decision does not expand or contract the electorate, alter legislative oversight, restore a bypassed consent mechanism, or invoke a specific statutory delegation in a novel way. Judicial interpretation of existing law, even when it narrows relief, does not itself engage the consent mechanism unless it involves a structural change to how democratic authorization flows.

The decision clarifies a mens rea requirement for plain-error review in federal felon-in-possession prosecutions. This is a core judicial function—interpreting the scope of appellate review and statutory criminal law. The ruling does not expand executive prosecutorial discretion, usurp legislative authority, or shift power between federal and state systems. It interprets existing federal law and applies it uniformly across the federal judiciary. While the ruling may have practical effects on how courts review convictions, it does not alter the structural allocation of power among branches or between sovereigns.

The decision directly engages rule-of-law by articulating a clear, judicially reviewable standard for when defendants may obtain plain-error relief. It provides transparency about the mens rea requirement—defendants must demonstrate unawareness of felon status—which creates a defined procedure that appellate courts can apply consistently. This clarification reduces arbitrary decision-making and establishes a legal standard that is knowable in advance. The ruling strengthens the rule-of-law dimension by making the scope of appellate review explicit and subject to judicial application of a stated principle, rather than leaving it ambiguous.

This decision engages minority_protection under sub-element 6a (individual minority protection). Criminal defendants, particularly those convicted of felonies, occupy a structural minority position in the criminal justice system. The ruling constricts their access to plain-error relief—a procedural mechanism designed to protect against judicial error—by requiring proof of subjective unawareness of felon status. This additional burden reduces the structural footing available to defendants to challenge convictions, even when errors occurred. The majority (the government and the public interest in finality) acts through a procedurally legitimate judicial mechanism to narrow a minority's (defendants') access to appellate review. While the ruling does not eliminate plain-error review entirely, it materially restricts the class of defendants who can invoke it, thereby constricting the minority's structural protection against error.