Whether prejudice should be presumed under the 'substantial rights' prong of plain-error review for Rehaif-derived trial errors

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) & § 924(a)(2), it is a criminal offense for anyone who falls within enumerated status categories to “knowingly” possess a firearm or ammunition. Prior to this Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 1389 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the circuit courts of appeal construed the mens rea element as applicable to the possession element of the offense, but not the status category element. By extension, circuit courts precluded any ignorance-of-status defense. With its Rehaif decision, this Court effected a sea change in the law, holding: “[I]n a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(¢) and § 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” 139 S. Ct. at 2020 (emphasis added). A great many defendants had been tried and convicted of § 922(g) & § 924(a)(2) offenses prior to issuance of the Rehaif decision. And prior to Rehaif, these defendants had been precluded by longstanding circuit precedent from: (i) ascertaining defects in charging documents which failed to apply “knowing” mens rea to the status element; (i) challenging trial instructions to the jury on this same ground; and (iii) presenting an ignorance-of-status defense at trial. This Court has held that, even when trial errors of this type were controlled by then-extant circuit authority, plain-error review under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) is applicable on direct ; appeal. Against this backdrop, the questions presented are— iB When evaluating Rehaif-derived trial errors under Rule 52(b) plainerror review, should prejudice under the “substantial rights” prong be presumed? 2. When evaluating Rehaif-derived trial errors under Rule 52(b) plainerror review, is it permissible for an appellate court to consider information gleaned from outside the trial record? i