US Supreme Court to Consider Possible Limits of Appeal Waivers

The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a man can fight his criminal fraud sentence despite waiving his right to appeal in a plea agreement with prosecutors.

The case granted Friday centers on Munson P. Hunter, who last year was convicted of wire fraud and later sentenced to more than four years in prison and three years of supervised release.

The sentence included a mandatory medication stipulation for his supervised release, a condition Hunter objected to at sentencing and appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Hunter argued the condition infringed on his right to being “free of unwanted mental health medication.” The Fifth Circuit dismissed the case, noting the appeal waiver barred his claim.

The question for the justices is whether under law the only exceptions for appeal waivers are claims of ineffective counsel or when a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. Another question the justices will consider is whether a waiver applies in instances where the sentencing judge advises the defendant of their right to appeal, as occurred in Hunter’s case, according to his petition before the court.

That petition, filed by lawyers including Supreme Court litigator Lisa Blatt, noted a deep divide among the appeals courts over the circumstances in which a defendant can appeal a sentence despite the appeal waiver.

The case could carry broader implications given the common use of waivers in plea agreements, which is how a large majority of criminal matters conclude.

The Justice Department filed a brief in opposition, arguing Hunter erred in claiming his appeal would have had a different outcome in other circuit courts.

The case is: Hunter v. US, U.S., 24-1063, granted, 10/10/25.