Supreme Court Rules Appeal Waivers Can Be Set Aside in Extreme Cases

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's ruling, which allows federal defendants in Illinois to appeal convictions despite waivers if a court finds a 'miscarriage of justice,' could impact plea bargaining practices and federal sentencing in the state. Local legal organizations and federal courts will need to adapt to the new framework for reviewing extreme errors in federal criminal cases.

---

The Supreme Court ruled that federal defendants may appeal their convictions despite signing waivers as part of plea agreements, provided courts find the case involves what justices called a miscarriage of justice. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for eight justices that an appeal waiver becomes unenforceable when enforcing it would result in "egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute." Chief Justice John Roberts joined her opinion without writing separately. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented alone. ## The Case Munson Hunter III pleaded guilty in 2024 to fraud charges and signed an agreement waiving his right to appeal. At sentencing, the judge imposed a condition requiring Hunter to take all mental health medications prescribed by his physician during any supervised release. Hunter objected to the requirement and filed an appeal despite his waiver, arguing the condition violated his constitutional rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit dismissed his appeal, ruling that appeal waivers were enforceable even if a sentence was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve disagreement among lower courts on whether waivers could be overridden in exceptional circumstances. ## The Majority's Framework Kagan grounded the decision in what she called "the special role of the judiciary." She wrote that federal courts have an institutional interest in ensuring legal proceedings appear fair to observers. The majority did not define with precision what constitutes a miscarriage of justice, saying only that it encompasses errors so severe that allowing them to stand would undermine public confidence in the judicial system. The opinion largely followed existing lower court precedent and avoided speculation about future applications. ## The Concealed Division Three justices wrote separate opinions that exposed substantive disagreement beneath the 8-1 vote. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, concurred with the outcome but stated they "respectfully disagree" with a competing vision offered by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote that Gorsuch's interpretation "may not be entirely consistent" with Kagan's opinion. Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a lengthy concurrence arguing that the decision should reach far beyond appeal waivers. He contended that current plea bargaining practices deviate sharply from constitutional text and historical practice. At the nation's founding, Gorsuch wrote, jury trials appeared twice in the Constitution, while plea bargains did not emerge until the 1850s and met "intense judicial skepticism" well into the twentieth century. ## Gorsuch's Broader Critique Gorsuch cited prosecutorial practices he characterized as coercive. He pointed to cases including Bordenkircher v. Hayes, in which a defendant faced a life sentence after rejecting a five-year plea offer, and Brady v. United States, in which a defendant agreed to a plea only after being threatened with death penalty prosecution. Gorsuch argued that defendants cannot make "knowing and voluntary" waivers of constitutional rights unless they fully understand the consequences. He contended that many current appeal waivers and plea agreements fail this standard. He also suggested that the decision could affect sentencing practices, mandatory minimum requirements, and conditions imposed during supervised release. Gorsuch identified four categories of sentencing issues that courts might revisit: penalties imposed for offenses other than those for which a defendant was convicted; penalties the law does not permit; constitutionally problematic conditions of release; and departures from required sentencing procedures. He noted that "all may warrant further exploration" in future cases. Barrett filed her own concurrence, agreeing with the outcome but declining to address whether Gorsuch's interpretation aligned with Kagan's opinion. ## The Split Vote's Meaning Analysts of the court's composition noted that the 8-1 vote masked a 5-4 division. Kagan's five (including Roberts) and Gorsuch's three hold broad views of judicial authority to correct egregious errors. Kavanaugh's three justices, plus Thomas, favored a narrower reading. Thomas argued that no constitutional source of law supports the majority's position. He wrote that the Constitution provides no right to appeal, making appeal waivers appropriate tools for settling litigation. Barrett suggested that courts possess inherent authority to recognize doctrines "settled by tradition or emerging consensus," offering a potential source of law distinct from constitutional text. ## Precedent and Future Effect The ruling recalled a 1998 Supreme Court decision, Apprendi v. New Jersey, that initially drew little attention but eventually reshaped criminal law doctrine across multiple areas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor later called Apprendi a "number 10 earthquake" in criminal sentencing. Lower courts will now grapple with applying the miscarriage of justice standard. Legal commentators expect the decision to generate substantial academic analysis and appellate litigation.