Justices Signal Openness to Expanding Appeal Waiver Exceptions

The US Supreme Court appeared open to broadening the circumstances in which criminal defendants can challenge sentencing conditions despite having signed plea agreements waiving their appellate rights.

Several justices at argument on Tuesday were skeptical of the Trump administration’s position that appeal waivers, now a standard feature of most plea deals, are largely ironclad. The government has warned that ruling against it could open a floodgate of litigation, as the overwhelming majority of state and federal criminal cases are resolved via pleas.

Pressed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the government said appeal waivers remain enforceable in nearly all cases, even when a judge delivers a sentence motivated by racism or sexism, or determined arbitrarily.

“If a district court says, ‘I’m going to let an orangutan pick a sentence out of a hat,’ you would say there’s no right to appeal that?” Gorsuch asked.

The case centers on Munson P. Hunter III, who was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to a single count of wire fraud. As part of his supervised release, a judge ordered Hunter to take all mental health medications prescribed by a physician.

Hunter said the condition violated his constitutional right to be “free of unwanted mental health medication.” The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the challenge, holding that Hunter’s plea agreement— which included a waiver of his right to appeal—barred the claim.

Represented by veteran litigator Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly, Hunter argues appeal waivers, like other contracts, must be subject to reasonable exceptions where fundamental rights are at stake.

“Whatever Elon Musk could get, a criminal defendant should be able to get under contract,” Blatt said.

The Supreme Court has said little about the boundaries of plea agreements. In Garza v. Idaho, the court held that that appeal waivers aren’t an “absolute bar” on all appellate claims.

Lower courts have acknowledged a limited number of exceptions—most commonly sentences greater than the law allows and ineffective assistance of counsel. Eight circuits have applied contract law in some form to plea agreements.

A coalition of amici—including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute—urged the court to rule for Hunter. They warned that affirming the Fifth Circuit’s decision could render potentially unconstitutional sentences effectively “invulnerable” to judicial review.

A decision is expected by July.

The case is Munson P. Hunter v. United States, U.S., No. 24-1063, argued on 3/3/26.