Petitioner Munson Hunter III entered a written plea agreement after being charged with ten counts of bank and wire fraud. Hunter pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. The agreement contained an appeal waiver and stated that any modification had to be in writing and signed by the parties.
At sentencing, Hunter objected to a supervised-release condition requiring him to take mental-health medications prescribed by his physician. After imposing the condition, the district judge told Hunter that he had a right to appeal. The prosecutor did not correct the statement. Hunter appealed the medication condition, but the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal based on the written waiver.
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded. Justice Kagan held that the sentencing judge’s statement did not modify the plea agreement and that the prosecutor’s silence neither waived nor forfeited the Government’s right to enforce the appeal waiver. The parties’ agreement—not the judge’s later statement—controlled, and the proper time for the Government to invoke the waiver was after Hunter appealed.
The Supreme Court nevertheless held that even a knowing and voluntary sentencing appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcement would produce a miscarriage of justice. The exception sets a high bar and applies only to obvious, egregious errors that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Examples include a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, a sentence infected by blatant constitutional error, or a proceeding lacking basic civilized procedure. Ordinary mistakes in applying the Sentencing Guidelines do not qualify.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether Hunter’s mandatory medication condition met that standard, leaving the question for the Fifth Circuit on remand.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in concurrence, wrote separately to discuss the history and practical realities of plea bargaining and appeal waivers.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Alito and Barrett in concurrence, emphasized the narrowness of the exception.
Justice Barrett concurred, separately grounded the decision in established waiver principles and procedural common law, rather than an inherent supervisory power over lower federal courts.
Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the Court identified no lawful basis for refusing to enforce Hunter’s waiver.
Certiorari to the Fifth Circuit
Opinion by Kagan, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson
Concurring opinion by Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson
Concurring opinion by Kavanaugh, joined by Alito and Barrett
Concurring opinion by Barrett
Dissenting opinion by Thomas
Click here to read the opinion.