Supreme Court eases plea-deal appeal waivers in 8-1 ruling
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that criminal defendants who waive their right to appeal can still challenge a sentence in rare cases where enforcing the waiver would produce a "miscarriage of justice."
The 8-1 decision in Hunter v. United States, No. 24-1063, throws out a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and sends the case back for another look, SCOTUSblog reported. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority; Justice Clarence Thomas dissented alone.
What the court held
An "agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice," Kagan wrote, defining that term as "the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute." The court adopted an exception already recognized by most federal circuits.
Kagan stressed the exception is narrow. Ordinary sentencing disputes will not qualify, she wrote, only extraordinary errors such as a term exceeding the statutory maximum or one "infected with a blatant constitutional error" like racial bias. To illustrate, she cited a lower court's example that a conviction would be invalid even by consent if "the parties stipulated to trial by 12 orangutans."
The case behind the ruling
Munson P. Hunter III, a Texas man, was charged with 10 counts of bank and wire fraud tied to roughly $500,000 in losses, according to Courthouse News Service. In February 2024 he pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud, and the government dropped the nine other charges.
As part of the deal, Hunter waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence except for claims that his lawyer was ineffective. Judge Sim Lake of the Southern District of Texas sentenced him to 51 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
The crime Hunter admitted involved a single transaction of $38,649, but the judge calculated his sentence as though he had helped steal $488,352 across 26 transactions, raising his advisory guidelines range from 15 to 21 months up to 41 to 51 months. The judge also ordered Hunter to take any mental-health medications a physician prescribed, a condition he argued violated his right to refuse unwanted drugs.
Concurrence and dissent
The 5th Circuit had dismissed Hunter's challenge, holding the waiver barred it. The justices disagreed and returned the case so the appeals court can weigh whether forced medication amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, used a concurrence to criticize the broader system. "In our times, the jury trial has given way to a conveyor belt of plea bargains," he wrote, adding that "the most remarkable thing about Mr. Hunter's plea-bargaining journey may be how unremarkable it is."
Thomas countered that there was no basis for excusing Hunter from his bargain. The majority's approach "seemed to rest on its policy concern" that enforcing waivers can produce unfair results, he wrote, but "policy concerns are not rules of decision in courts of law."
Why it matters
Because the vast majority of federal convictions come from plea deals, appeal waivers have become a routine tool for prosecutors seeking finality, Reason reported. Critics warn the decision could spur more post-conviction litigation, though Kagan noted that sentences raising miscarriage-of-justice concerns are rare.
The ruling adds to a term in which the justices have repeatedly shaped criminal procedure. For related coverage, see our reports on how the court sided with a Mississippi death row inmate over jury bias, agreed to decide whether states may use six-person criminal juries, and upheld the gun rights of marijuana users.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in Hunter v. United States?
By an 8-1 vote, the court held that a plea-deal waiver of the right to appeal cannot be enforced when doing so would result in a "miscarriage of justice," meaning an egregious error that undermines confidence in the courts.
Does the ruling let any defendant appeal despite a waiver?
No. Justice Elena Kagan emphasized the exception is narrow and applies only to extraordinary errors, such as sentences exceeding statutory limits or infected with blatant constitutional violations, not ordinary sentencing disputes.
What happens to Munson Hunter's case now?
The Supreme Court sent it back to the 5th Circuit to decide whether enforcing his appeal waiver, and the forced-medication condition he challenged, would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Who dissented?
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, writing that there was no basis for excusing Hunter from his waiver and that policy concerns are not rules of decision.
Sources
Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.