Appeal waivers in plea deals
Hunter v. United States
In brief
A sentencing appeal waiver can be set aside only in extreme cases where enforcing it would leave an egregious error in place and damage confidence in the courts.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-1 · June 18, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Barrett
- 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.
- Who it affects
- Appeal waivers in plea deals are not absolute when they would preserve an egregious and obvious sentencing error. For example, a defendant challenging a supervised-release condition may seek review despite a waiver in an extreme case.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
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.
The case addresses when criminal defendants who accept plea deals may still appeal their sentences.
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?
What the Court decided
Holding
An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice—meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 8joined the Court's opinion
- Dissenting · 1disagreed with the result
- Thomaswrote the dissent
From the opinions
“I see no basis for excusing Hunter from his appeal waiver.”
What's next
The Fifth Circuit must reconsider Hunter's appeal under the Court's miscarriage-of-justice standard. It must decide whether the challenged supervised-release medication condition meets that high bar.
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - EK
Status changed from pending to argued
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Hunter
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Hunter v. United States?
- The Court ruled that an appeal waiver cannot be enforced when doing so would create a miscarriage of justice. It vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remanded.
- Who does Hunter v. United States affect?
- It affects criminal defendants who signed plea agreements containing appeal waivers. It also guides prosecutors and federal courts handling sentencing appeals.
- What happens next in Hunter v. United States?
- The Fifth Circuit will reconsider Hunter's challenge to his supervised-release condition. It must apply the Supreme Court's high standard for a miscarriage of justice.
- Is the miscarriage-of-justice rule still the law after Hunter v. United States?
- Yes. The Court said appeal waivers are unenforceable when they would preserve an egregious error that brings the judicial system into disrepute.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.