Matthew Cavedon
In February 2024, petitioner Munson Hunter 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 appeal the sentence. 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. Although 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 asked the Supreme Court to reverse, supported by a Cato amicus brief. The Court granted review, and Cato filed a fresh brief, joined by a cross-ideological coalition of civil rights and criminal reform groups. The brief argues that 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 reverse.
