InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Greer v. United States

The Court held that an unobjected-to failure to instruct the jury that the defendant must have known they were a felon is not structural error requiring reversal.

141 S. Ct. 2090 · No. 19-8709 · 2020 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 14, 2021 · argued Apr 20, 2021

Criminal procedure · Retroactivity

Majority opinion: Brett Kavanaugh

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Affirmed. Greer lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Greer was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an unobjected-to failure to instruct the jury that the defendant must have known they were a felon is not structural error requiring reversal. Moreover, it would be difficult to show plain error because "convicted felons ordinarily know that they are convicted felons." The case was consolidated with United States v. Gary; Sotomayor dissented to the court's assessment of Gary.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2020 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorBreyerKaganJ. RobertsKavanaughBarrettGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
GreerPerson convicted of crime
Respondent
United StatesUnited States
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or relevant rules of a circuit court
Kind of law
Court Rules
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 14, 2021DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Greer lost.
  2. Apr 20, 2021ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Florida Middle U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

35 other argued cases since 1946 on retroactivity, newest first.

  1. Edwards v. Vannoy, Warden141 S. Ct. 1547May 17, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1547Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  2. Welch v. United States578 U.S. 120Apr 18, 2016 · 578 U.S. 120Criminal procedure7–18–1 band

  3. Montgomery v. Louisiana577 U.S. 190Jan 25, 2016 · 577 U.S. 190Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  4. Roselva Chaidez, Petitioner v. United States568 U.S. 342Feb 20, 2013 · 568 U.S. 342Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  5. Edward Dorsey, Sr., Petitioner v. United States567 U.S. 260Jun 21, 2012 · 567 U.S. 260Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  6. Stephen Danforth v. Minnesota552 U.S. 264Feb 20, 2008 · 552 U.S. 264Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  7. Glen Whorton, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections v. Marvin Howard Bockting549 U.S. 406Feb 28, 2007 · 549 U.S. 406Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  8. Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al. v. George E. Banks542 U.S. 406Jun 24, 2004 · 542 U.S. 406Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  9. Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Warren Wesley Summerlin542 U.S. 348Jun 24, 2004 · 542 U.S. 348Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  10. Republic of Austria et al. v. Altmann541 U.S. 677Jun 7, 2004 · 541 U.S. 677Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  11. Joseph Roger O'Dell, III v. J. D. Netherland, Warden, et al.521 U.S. 151Jun 19, 1997 · 521 U.S. 151Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  12. Kitrich Powell v. Nevada511 U.S. 79Mar 30, 1994 · 511 U.S. 79Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  13. Yates v. Aiken, Warden, et al.484 U.S. 211Jan 12, 1988 · 484 U.S. 211Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  14. Griffith v. Kentucky479 U.S. 314Jan 13, 1987 · 479 U.S. 314Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  15. Shea v. Louisiana470 U.S. 51Feb 20, 1985 · 470 U.S. 51Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  16. Solem, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary v. Stumes465 U.S. 638Feb 29, 1984 · 465 U.S. 638Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  17. United States v. Johnson457 U.S. 537Jun 21, 1982 · 457 U.S. 537Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  18. Brown v. Louisiana447 U.S. 323Jun 16, 1980 · 447 U.S. 323Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  19. Hankerson v. North Carolina432 U.S. 233Jun 17, 1977 · 432 U.S. 233Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  20. Bowen v. United States422 U.S. 916Jun 30, 1975 · 422 U.S. 916Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  21. United States v. Peltier422 U.S. 531Jun 25, 1975 · 422 U.S. 531Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  22. Gosa v. Mayden, Warden413 U.S. 665Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 665Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  23. Robinson v. Neil, Warden409 U.S. 505Jan 16, 1973 · 409 U.S. 505Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  24. Adams v. Illinois405 U.S. 278Mar 6, 1972 · 405 U.S. 278Criminal procedure5–27–2 band

  25. Hill v. California401 U.S. 797Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 797Criminal procedure6–27–2 band

  26. United States v. United States Coin & Currency401 U.S. 715Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 715Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  27. Mackey v. United States401 U.S. 667Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 667Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  28. Williams v. United States401 U.S. 646Apr 5, 1971 · 401 U.S. 646Criminal procedure6–27–2 band

  29. Debacker v. Brainard, Sheriff396 U.S. 28Nov 12, 1969 · 396 U.S. 28Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
  30. Jenkins v. Delaware395 U.S. 213Jun 2, 1969 · 395 U.S. 213Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  31. Kaiser v. New York394 U.S. 280Mar 24, 1969 · 394 U.S. 280Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  32. Johnson et al. v. New Jersey384 U.S. 719Jun 20, 1966 · 384 U.S. 719Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  33. Tehan, Sheriff v. United States ex rel. Shott382 U.S. 406Jan 19, 1966 · 382 U.S. 406Criminal procedure5–27–2 band
  34. Angelet v. Fay, Warden381 U.S. 654Jun 7, 1965 · 381 U.S. 654Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  35. Linkletter v. Walker, Warden381 U.S. 618Jun 7, 1965 · 381 U.S. 618Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.