Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 24-1063Jun 18, 2026Crime and Law EnforcementReversed and remanded

The question

Whether an agreement not to appeal a criminal sentence can be enforced when doing so would leave an serious sentencing error in place.

Hunter v. United States

What the Court decided

The Court held that an appeal waiver in a plea agreement is unenforceable when enforcing it would work a miscarriage of justice, meaning it would leave in place the kind of serious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Eight justices agreed on the result; Justice Thomas dissented.

How the justices split

8-1
In favor 8Against 1
Kagan
Roberts
Alito
Sotomayor
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson
Thomas

The Court's opinion

Kagan, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

A waiver of the right to appeal a sentence does not bind a defendant when enforcing it would produce a miscarriage of justice, leaving in place an error so serious that it would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Such waivers are otherwise valid, but this narrow exception preserves the courts' ability to correct grave sentencing errors.

Concurring

Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor, Jackson

Gorsuch joined the Court and wrote separately, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.

Concurring

Kavanaugh, joined by Alito, Barrett

Kavanaugh joined the Court and wrote separately, joined by Alito and Barrett.

Dissenting

Thomas, writing alone

Thomas dissented, and would have enforced the appeal waiver as written.

How we know · 2 sourced claims
  • The Court held an appeal waiver is unenforceable when it would leave in place an serious error that brings the judicial system into disrepute.

    Source: syllabus, Held, at 24-1063

  • Kagan wrote for the Court; Thomas dissented.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov