Hunter Case Tops Supreme Court Docket
The Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter v. United States is likely the most important criminal case of the term, despite receiving little immediate media attention. The court ruled that there is a “miscarriage of justice” exception to waivers of appeal, which have become standard in federal criminal plea bargains.
The 8-1 decision drew little attention, but it masks deep divisions within the court. A three-justice concurrence by Justice Neil Gorsuch suggests broad implications for the criminal justice system.
Hunter v. United States may portend similar seismic shifts in criminal law, similar to the court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey 26 years ago. Apprendi had a significant impact on criminal law doctrine, with effects still being felt today.
In Hunter, the court considered the case of Munson Hunter III, who pleaded guilty to fraud in 2024. As part of his plea bargain, Hunter waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence.
However, Hunter later objected to a condition of his supervised release that required him to take mental health medications. He argued that this condition would violate his constitutional rights, despite his waiver of appeal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit dismissed Hunter’s appeal, relying on its precedent that an appeal waiver controls even if a sentence is “unconstitutional.” The Supreme Court granted review to settle differing lower court views.
Justice Elena Kagan’s majority opinion vacated the 5th Circuit’s decision and adopted the prevailing lower court view. Kagan wrote that an appeal waiver is “unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice.”
They were joined by all but Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote a solo dissent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also penned a separate concurrence, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett.
Gorsuch’s concurrence, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, suggests that the court’s decision in Hunter could have far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system, particularly in regards to pesticide labels.
Gorsuch argues that the court has condoned “coercive prosecutorial tactics” that induce defendants to take plea deals, rather than going to trial. He notes that the right to a jury trial is enshrined in the Constitution, but has given way to a system of plea bargains.
The implications of Gorsuch’s concurrence are significant, and could lead to a stricter standard for waivers. This could have impacts beyond the narrow appeal waiver context, potentially affecting sentencing practices and the federal rules that govern sentencing.
The court’s decision will undoubtedly produce lower court applications and much legal commentary, as the implications of the decision are fleshed out, and it will be important to watch how the justices’ opinions are interpreted and applied in future sessions.
It will take years to settle the justices’ positions on the arc of Gorsuch’s vision.
The Supreme Court has set the stage for a potentially significant shift in the criminal justice system, one that could have far-reaching implications for defendants, prosecutors, and the courts themselves, and the decision may influence the discussion on allowing live video coverage in courts.
