Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-5726_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

KEMP v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

Rule 60(b)(1) includes legal errors made by judges.2 

B 

Both  the  Government’s  and  Kemp’s  interpretations  of 
Rule 60(b) depart from aspects of our reading.  Their rea-
sons for doing so are unavailing. 

1 
The  Government  contends  that  the  term  “mistake”  en-
compasses  only  so-called  “obvious”  legal  errors.    Brief  for 
United  States  11.    Several  Courts  of  Appeals  agree  that
Rule 60(b)(1) may be used to correct only “ ‘obvious errors’ 
of law, such as overlooking controlling statutes or case law.” 
In re  Ta  Chi  Navigation  (Panama)  Corp.  S. A.,  728  F. 2d 
699, 703 (CA5 1984).  The Government argues that this lim-
itation “has historical roots” because courts of equity tradi-
tionally “could grant relief from legal errors, but only ‘in the 
most unquestionable and flagrant cases.’ ”  Brief for United 
States  18  (quoting  Snell  v.  Insurance  Co.,  98  U. S.  85,  91 
(1878)).

We  are  unconvinced.    None  of  the  English  language  or 
legal dictionaries noted above, supra, at 4–5, suggests this
“obviousness” gloss.  Nor does the Government tie the eq-
uity practice it invokes to the text or history of Rule 60(b).
Finally, we question the administrability of a rule that re-
quires courts to decide not only whether there was a “mis-
take” but also whether that mistake was sufficiently “obvi-
ous.”  The  text  does  not  support—let  alone  require—that
judges engage in this sort of complex line-drawing. 

2 

We are similarly unconvinced by Kemp’s arguments for 

—————— 

2 Here, Kemp alleged that the District Court erred by misapplying con-
trolling law to record facts.  In deciding that this alleged error is a “mis-
take,” we do not decide whether a judicial decision rendered erroneous 
by subsequent legal or factual changes also qualifies as a “mistake” un-
der Rule 60(b)(1).