Despite appellate waivers’ ubiquity, the Supreme Court has yet to squarely address their constitutionality. This case presents a promising opportunity to ensure that they remain within the parameters of the Constitution. In February 2024, Petitioner Munson P. Hunter III entered a guilty plea to one federal count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. He did so pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a provision waiving nearly all of his rights to a direct appeal (the exception being for claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel).

Three months later, Mr. Hunter was sentenced. At that time, he objected to a requirement that he take mental health medication while on supervised release. Though the district court imposed this condition, it assured Mr. Hunter: “You have a right to appeal. If you wish to appeal, [your counsel] will continue to represent you.” Directly after this, the district court invited any further comments from counsel. The prosecutor responded: “Your Honor, I believe—well, no. I—no.”

Mr. Hunter then appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the medication condition violated his due-process rights. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that appellate waivers foreclose most constitutional challenges to sentences and that the district court’s assurance did not grant Mr. Hunter any opportunity to appeal. Mr. Hunter now asks the Supreme Court to reverse.

Cato filed a brief in support of his cert petition. Unconstitutional sentences raise grave public concerns and should not be removed from judicial reviewability through plea bargaining. It is also imperative to confirm that plea agreements can be modified through trial judges’ oral statements, especially when accompanied by prosecutorial acquiescence.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision welcomes prosecutors to bargain for sentences that courts cannot constitutionally impose. The Supreme Court should grant Mr. Hunter’s petition and reverse.