Skip to main content

No. 24-1063October Term 2025Decided Jun 18, 2026Updated Sep 2, 2026

Docket 24-1063October Term 2025 (2025–2026)

Munson P. Hunter, III v. United States

Munson P. Hunter, III, Petitioner v. United States

The Court considered whether a defendant who agreed not to appeal his sentence as part of a plea deal could still challenge a supervised-release condition requiring him to take prescribed mental-health medication.

Case status

Hunter challenged a medication condition despite an appeal waiver (a promise not to appeal). The Court ruled that a waiver is unenforceable when enforcement would cause a miscarriage of justice.

Decided 8-1 · June 18, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Kagan

Read the opinion (PDF)
Current stage
Decided
Latest event
Decision released Jun 18, 2026
Case Accepted
Arguments HeardMar 3, 2026
Decision ReleasedJun 18, 2026
What it's about

The Court considered whether a defendant who agreed not to appeal his sentence as part of a plea deal could still challenge a supervised-release condition requiring him to take prescribed mental-health medication. The Court held that appeal waivers are not absolute and may be refused when enforcing them would create a miscarriage of justice, then sent Hunter’s case back for that standard to be applied.

Question presented

1. Does an appeal waiver bar all claims except for ineffective assistance of counsel or a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum? 2. Does such a waiver become ineffective if the sentencing judge later tells the defendant they can appeal, and the government fails to object?

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit / Decision released Jun 18, 2026

Area

Criminal Procedure

Decision

Decision record

What the Court decided

Hunter challenged a medication condition despite an appeal waiver (a promise not to appeal). The Court ruled that a waiver is unenforceable when enforcement would cause a miscarriage of justice.

Impact

Federal defendants who accept plea agreements with appeal waivers are affected. They may challenge sentences when enforcement creates a miscarriage of justice (an obvious, extreme sentencing error). For example, Hunter may challenge a condition requiring prescribed mental-health medication. The Fifth Circuit must decide whether Hunter’s medication condition meets that demanding standard. Ordinary errors in sentencing calculations or sentencing factors generally will not defeat a valid waiver.

Not official Court text.

Timing

Decided June 18, 2026

The Court released its decision 107 days after oral argument on March 3, 2026. The median for cases argued in March is 83 days.

Based on 44 merits cases argued in March since 1995.Argument and decision days

Activity

Docket activity7
  • AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis

    Sep 2, 2026 | Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary

    Sep 2, 2026 | Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Sep 1, 2026 | Generated

  • Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - EK

    Jun 18, 2026 | Court records

  • Brief added: Questions Presented

    Mar 8, 2026 | Court records

  • Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Hunter

    Mar 3, 2026 | Court records

  • Brief added: Petition

    Apr 4, 2025 | Court records