U.S. Supreme Court Creates a Safety Valve for Guilty Plea Appeal Waivers (Hunter v. United States, 608 U.S., 2026 WL 1717635 June 18, 2026)

Appeal Waivers Finally Meet Their Limit

Federal plea agreements routinely require defendants to waive their right to appeal. For years, courts have generally enforced those waivers according to their terms, leaving defendants with few options to challenge their convictions or sentences after pleading guilty. As a result, the scope of appeal waivers has been a bone of contention for defense lawyers throughout the United States. In Hunter v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the enforceability of appellate waivers, but also recognized an important exception when enforcing a waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Case

Munson Hunter pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting wire fraud pursuant to a plea agreement containing a broad appellate waiver. At sentencing, the district court imposed a supervised-release condition requiring that he take all prescribed mental health medications. Although Hunter had waived most appellate rights, the district judge incorrectly advised him that he retained a right to appeal the condition regarding medication. Hunter later challenged the supervised release condition, arguing both that the medication condition was unconstitutional and that the court’s statement effectively nullified the waiver.

The Decision

Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan rejected the argument that the district court’s misstatement modified the plea agreement. The agreement expressly required any modification to be in writing, and the government’s failure to object to the court’s statement did not waive or forfeit its ability to enforce the appellate waiver. The Court emphasized that plea agreements remain contracts that generally will be enforced according to their terms.

A New ‘Miscarriage of Justice’ Exception

That said, a significant aspect of the decision is the Court’s adoption of a narrow miscarriage of justice exception to appellate waivers. Rejecting the government’s position that valid waivers must always be enforced, the Court held that appellate courts may review otherwise waived claims when enforcement would produce an extraordinary and fundamentally unjust result. Examples identified by the Court include sentences that exceed statutory limits, sentences infected by blatant constitutional violations, or proceedings that fundamentally undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

Why It Matters

Hunter resolves a longstanding circuit split and establishes a uniform federal standard governing appellate waiver. While the decision is unlikely to open the floodgates to routine sentencing appeals, it preserves a critical safeguard against extreme legal and constitutional errors. The government will continue to rely on appellate waivers, but defendants now have a narrow avenue to challenge sentences that cross the line from ordinary error to fundamental injustice.