In the case of Armarcion D. Henderson v. United States in 2012, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a defendant's failure to object during sentencing could be excused due to ineffective legal counsel. The petitioner, Armarcion D. Henderson, was convicted on drug charges and sentenced by a district court judge who used an incorrect Federal Sentencing Guidelines range that resulted in a longer sentence than appropriate for his crime level under correct guidelines calculations. Henderson did not object at the time but later appealed his sentence based on this error; however, he had failed to raise this issue earlier because of poor advice from his lawyer which led him not challenging it during sentencing proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Henderson stating that when lawyers provide deficient advice about objections or failings at trial leading their clients into silence rather than objection can constitute as "plain errors" affecting substantial rights even if they were forfeited by failing to timely assert them before lower courts. This ruling clarified that defendants may still appeal sentences based on plain errors despite lack of initial objection if such non-objection was due to ineffective assistance from their attorneys.

In the dissenting opinion for Armarcion D. Henderson v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow a plain-error review in cases where law changes after trial undermines the finality of legal judgments and disrupts judicial efficiency. He contended that this approach would encourage defendants to strategically withhold objections during their trials with hopes of appealing later if laws change favorably. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on an "interests of justice" standard as being too vague and subjective, arguing it could lead to inconsistent application across different courts due to its lack of clear guidelines or criteria.