Hunter v. United States

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 10 Oct 2025

1. This Court has recognized that "no appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all appellate claims." Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232, 238 (2019). But the Court has "ma[de] no statement ... on what particular exceptions [to appeal waivers] may be required." Id. at 238-39 & n.6. In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent, holding that there are only two grounds on which defendants who sign general appeal waivers may challenge their sentence on appeal: (1) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) claims that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits adopt a similarly narrow view of the exceptions to general appeal waivers. In stark conflict, the First, Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits permit defendants who sign general appeal waivers to raise a broad range of constitutional challenges to their sentences beyond the limited exceptions recognized by the Fifth Circuit and the other courts on its side of the circuit split. The Fifth Circuit below also reaffirmed its precedent holding that an appeal waiver applies even when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object to that advice. Although other circuits agree with the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit squarely holds otherwise, releasing defendants from appeal waivers in identical circumstances. The questions presented are:
2. Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.
3. Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The defendant pleaded guilty under an agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for ineffective-assistance claims. At sentencing, the district court mistakenly told him he had a right to appeal, but the Court held that this did not modify the plea agreement or make the Government lose its right to enforce the waiver. The main issue was whether the waiver could bar an appeal when the challenged sentence allegedly involved serious constitutional error. Justice Kagan wrote that appeal waivers are unenforceable when enforcing them would result in a miscarriage of justice, meaning an obvious, egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. The Court rejected both the Government’s position that knowing and voluntary waivers are always enforceable and the Fifth Circuit’s narrower exceptions. It gave examples such as a sentence above the statutory maximum, a blatant constitutional error, or a sentence imposed without minimum civilized procedure. The Court vacated and remanded for the Fifth Circuit to decide under that standard whether the medication condition could be appealed.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Thomas dissented. He argued that Hunter knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that there was no legal basis for a miscarriage-of-justice exception. In his view, defendants may waive appeal rights, the plea agreement plainly limited appeals to ineffective-assistance claims and sentences above the statutory maximum, and the district court’s remarks at sentencing did not change that bargain. He said the Court’s new exception rests on policy concerns, not law, and that courts lack authority to override the waiver simply because enforcement might seem unfair or reflect badly on the judiciary.