Oral Argument: Hunter v. United States | Can Plea Waivers Block Unconstitutional Sentences?

Hunter v. United States | Oral Argument: 3/3/2026 | Case No. 24-1063 | Docket Link: HereOverview: Criminal defendant challenges mandatory medication condition after judge told him he could appeal despite signed appeal waiver, creating fundamental questions about plea agreement enforcement and judicial authorityQuestion Presented: Whether appeal waivers in plea agreements can only include exceptions for ineffective assistance claims and sentences exceeding statutory maximums, and whether judicial statements about appeal rights override written waiversOral Advocates:For Petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt of Williams & Connolly LLP argued for Petitioner Hunter.For Respondent: Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued for Respondent United States.Posture: Fifth Circuit dismissed appeal citing two-exception rule; Supreme Court granted certiorariMain Arguments:• Hunter (Petitioner): (1) Contract law requires broader exceptions protecting reasonable expectations beyond two rigid categories; (2) Other circuits successfully recognize additional exceptions without creating chaos; (3) Judicial statements about appeal rights combined with government silence modify plea agreements• United States (Respondent): (1) Appeal waivers constitute binding contracts requiring enforcement according to written terms; (2) Appeal rights remain statutory rather than constitutional making waivers more enforceable; (3) Post-plea judicial misstatements cannot undermine knowing and voluntary waiversImplications: Hunter victory creates safety valve for extreme sentences but weakens prosecutorial bargaining power and plea agreement finality. Government victory cements nationwide enforcement of broad appeal waivers while potentially allowing constitutional violations without appellate oversight.The Fine Print:• Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"• 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(9): Courts may require defendants "undergo available medical, psychiatric, or psychological treatment as specified by the court"Primary Cases:• Garza v. Idaho (2019): "No appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all appellate claims" because plea agreements function essentially as contracts subject to traditional defenses• United States v. Mezzanatto (1995): Even "most fundamental protections afforded by the Constitution" may be waived through knowing and voluntary agreements including plea bargainsTimestamps:[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview[00:01:00] Oral Advocates[00:01:11] Oral Argument Begins[00:01:18] Hunter Opening Statement[00:03:10] Hunter Free for All Questions[00:27:27] Hunter Round Robin Questions[00:45:07] United States Opening Statement[00:46:54] Hunter Free for All Questions[01:15:22] United States Round Robin Questions[01:33:51] Hunter Rebuttal