The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 10, 2025, in Hunter v. United States (No. 24-1063), a case that will clarify when defendants who sign appeal waivers in plea agreements can still challenge their sentences. The case addresses a circuit split that has confused practitioners for years: What happens when a sentencing judge tells a defendant he has the right to appeal, even though the defendant signed a waiver giving up that right?
What Happened to Munson Hunter
In February 2024, Munson Hunter pleaded guilty in federal court in Texas to aiding and abetting wire fraud. His plea agreement included a broad appeal waiver—a standard provision in federal plea deals that bars defendants from appealing their convictions or sentences except in narrow circumstances.
Three months later at sentencing, the judge imposed a condition of supervised release requiring Hunter to take any mental health medications prescribed by his doctors. Hunter objected to this condition, arguing it violated his constitutional right to refuse unwanted medication. Despite the objection, the judge imposed the condition anyway. But then the judge told Hunter: "You have a right to appeal."
Hunter took the judge at his word and appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing the mandatory medication condition violated the liberty interest recognized in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). The government moved to dismiss, pointing to the appeal waiver. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the government and dismissed the appeal, holding that the judge's statement at sentencing did not override the written waiver in the plea agreement.
The Questions Presented
The Supreme Court will address two questions that have divided the federal circuits:
First, can a defendant who signed an appeal waiver still challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds beyond ineffective assistance of counsel or sentences exceeding the statutory maximum? Some circuits allow defendants to appeal conditions that violate fundamental constitutional rights despite an appeal waiver. Others enforce waivers broadly, barring virtually all appeals.
Second, when a sentencing judge tells a defendant he has a right to appeal—contradicting the written plea agreement—which controls? The Ninth Circuit holds that a judge's clear statement at sentencing renders the prior waiver unenforceable. The Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits hold that a judge's statement doesn't override a valid written waiver.
Why This Matters for Defense Lawyers
This case has significant practical implications for federal criminal defense. Appeal waivers appear in the vast majority of federal plea agreements. Prosecutors routinely insist on them as a condition of offering any plea deal. Understanding their scope and enforceability is critical to both plea negotiations and sentencing advocacy.
The mandatory medication condition at issue in Hunter raises stakes beyond the ordinary sentence appeal. Sell v. United States established that defendants have a significant liberty interest in avoiding forced psychiatric medication. The Court held that the government can only override this interest when important governmental interests are at stake and strict safeguards are met. Courts must find that medication is necessary, medically appropriate, unlikely to cause side effects interfering with trial fairness, and that no less intrusive alternatives exist.
But Sell addressed pre-trial medication to restore competency. Hunter's case involves post-conviction medication as a condition of supervised release. Although the contexts differ, both raise comparable constitutional concerns about bodily autonomy and mental integrity— in Hunter, the right of a competent person to control his or her own thoughts and cognitive processes without government intrusion.
The Circuit Split
The circuits have taken three distinct approaches to appeal waivers:
Broad Enforcement (Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Eleventh Circuits): These circuits enforce appeal waivers broadly, allowing appeals only for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or sentences exceeding the statutory maximum. Even fundamental constitutional challenges to sentencing conditions are barred. When judges make statements about appeal rights at sentencing, these circuits give controlling weight to the written waiver signed earlier.
Fundamental Rights Exception (Second, Fourth Circuits): These circuits recognize that appeal waivers cannot bar challenges to violations of fundamental constitutional rights that were firmly established at the time of sentencing or that have an overriding impact on public interests. A mandatory medication condition potentially falls within this exception.
Judge's Statement Controls (Ninth Circuit): The Ninth Circuit holds that when a sentencing judge makes a clear statement that the defendant has a right to appeal, that statement renders unenforceable any prior waiver in the plea agreement. The government essentially waives the waiver by remaining silent when the judge tells the defendant about appeal rights.
What Defense Lawyers Should Do Now
While awaiting the Court's decision (expected by June 2026), defense counsel should:
At the plea stage: Pay careful attention to appeal waiver provisions. Consider negotiating carve-outs for specific constitutional challenges, particularly those involving conditions of supervised release that may not be known at the time of the plea. Document any discussions about the scope of the waiver.
At sentencing: Object clearly to any problematic conditions. If the judge states that the defendant has a right to appeal, ask for clarification about how that statement affects the appeal waiver. Consider asking the government to state on the record whether it waives enforcement of the waiver. In circuits following the Ninth Circuit approach, the government's silence may be significant.
On appeal: In circuits that currently enforce waivers broadly, acknowledge the controlling precedent but preserve arguments for potential Supreme Court review. Cite the circuit split and explain why the case falls within any recognized exceptions. Even in the Fifth Circuit, courts have occasionally found waivers unenforceable when circumstances involve potential due process violations.
Post-Hunter: Once the Supreme Court decides, reevaluate plea negotiation strategies. If the Court sides with Hunter, defendants may have more room to challenge sentencing conditions despite waivers. If the Court sides with the government, consider whether that makes negotiating limited waivers more important during plea discussions.
The Bigger Picture
Hunter arrives at a time when plea bargaining dominates federal criminal justice. More than ninety-five percent of federal convictions result from guilty pleas. Appeal waivers have become nearly universal in plea agreements. As the Supreme Court recognized in Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232 (2019), these waivers raise serious concerns about defendants knowingly and intelligently waiving appellate rights before they know what sentence they will receive.
The case also highlights tensions between efficient case processing and protecting constitutional rights. The government argues that allowing appeals despite waivers undermines the finality that plea agreements are meant to provide. But as Justice Sotomayor noted during oral argument in an earlier case, defendants accepting pre-sentencing waivers don't know whether their sentences will be constitutional. They're essentially waiving the right to correct an illegal sentence without knowing whether that sentence will be illegal.
The Court's decision will likely turn on how it balances these competing interests. A defendant-friendly ruling could open the door to more constitutional challenges despite waivers. A government-friendly ruling could make waivers nearly absolute, placing even greater importance on the plea negotiation stage as the last real opportunity to protect defendants' rights.
Conclusion
Hunter v. United States will clarify the scope and enforceability of appeal waivers in federal criminal cases. The decision will affect every practitioner who negotiates plea agreements or handles sentencing. Defense lawyers should watch this case closely and prepare to adjust their practice based on how the Court resolves the circuit split.
Until the Court decides, the most important practical advice remains unchanged: Read appeal waivers carefully, negotiate their scope when possible, preserve issues through clear objections at sentencing, and understand how your circuit currently treats these waivers. The law may change soon, but careful advocacy at every stage remains essential.
For more information about the case, see Hunter v. United States, No. 24-1063 (U.S. cert. granted Oct. 10, 2025).
