Hunter v. United States

Summary

Justice Kagan, writing for eight Justices, held that a knowing and voluntary sentencing-appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcement would produce a miscarriage of justice: an obvious, egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. The Court also held that the sentencing judge’s erroneous statement about appeal rights neither modified Hunter’s agreement nor, through the prosecutor’s silence, waived or forfeited the Government’s enforcement right. It vacated and remanded without deciding whether Hunter’s mandatory-medication condition met the new standard. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, advocated a broader application of the exception and questioned prospective appeal waivers more generally. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Alito and Barrett, emphasized the exception’s high threshold and disputed Gorsuch’s interpretation. Justice Barrett separately grounded the decision in procedural common law rather than supervisory authority. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that no legal authority justified the exception and that Hunter’s waiver should be enforced.