The Supreme Court Issued an 8–1 Ruling on Plea Deals. The Accord Won’t Last.

Jurisprudence

June 18, 2026 5:20 PM

Agreement for once.

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Kenny Holston/Pool/Getty Images.

This is part of Opinionpalooza , Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by signing up for weekly email roundups . The best way to support our work—and unlock exclusive legal analysis—is by joining Slate Plus . (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch !)

The Supreme Court issued an important criminal justice ruling on Thursday about the appropriate bounds of plea bargains. In an 8–1 opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court held that some plea agreements that waive a defendant’s right to appeal a bad sentencing may lead to a manifest miscarriage of justice, and therefore can be declared void by courts. But while the 8–1 vote may make this case initially come across as noncontroversial, there are a series of disagreements between the justices, including among Donald Trump appointees, that could have a serious impact on the future rights of trial by jury.

The federal government charged a man named Munson Hunter with 10 counts of bank and wire fraud for a series of business transactions. As is often the case, the prosecutor hoped to get a guilty plea out of Hunter. The prosecution leveraged the sheer number of counts that they’d brought, saying to Hunter that they would drop nine of the 10 charges, which in total could combine to 300 years of jail time, if Hunter would plead guilty to one of the lesser offenses. Hunter agreed and signed a plea bargain.

The plea bargain contained a number of waivers. Most notably, Hunter agreed that he could not appeal the court’s ruling cementing his guilty verdict. Moreover, Hunter would not be able to appeal the sentencing that would happen after the plea was entered, meaning he would have to sign the plea agreement before knowing his ultimate sentence. The only area where his rights were explicitly retained was that Hunter could still appeal under a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which the Supreme Court had recognized as a constitutional right that could not be waived.

After he signed the agreement, something strange happened at Hunter’s sentencing. Instead of just receiving a sentence of about five years, the court also tried to impose a requirement that Hunter be required to start taking mental health medications in order to qualify for supervised release. Hunter appealed this medication component, arguing that he had a constitutional right to refuse medication under Supreme Court precedent. The 5 th Circuit disagreed and dismissed Hunter’s appeal, ruling that he had signed away his rights to appeal this issue. Under the 5 th Circuit’s view, an appeal waiver can only be voided under two limited circumstances: when the defendant did not knowingly enter into the plea bargain, or when the bargain exceeds the statutory maximum for the jail sentence imposed.

But the Supreme Court sided against the 5 th Circuit and ruled that this was the wrong standard. As Justice Kagan explained, there was another scenario in which an appeal waiver can be void, and that’s when enforcing the appeal waiver would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The reason has to do with the inherent role of the courts in the criminal justice system. All plea bargains must be approved by a trial judge and, if appealed, considered again by an appeals judge. When it comes to enforcing these bargains, “courts [are] in the middle of, and partly responsible for, appeal waivers and their results.” And so if “a court always carries out those waivers—no matter the kind or degree of error tainting a sentence—the judicial system’s integrity may come into question.” From this there carries a limited space for courts to reject grotesque or unconstitutional plea bargain terms. For example, if there was evidence that the trial judge imposed a particular sentence because the defendant was a racial or religious minority, an appeals court would not be required to throw out an appeal just because the defendant and prosecution struck an earlier bargain.

Not every small error would lead the court to void an appeal waiver, though. For instance, a discussion in the courtroom also seemed to play a role in suggesting that Hunter received an unfair process. At the sentencing hearing, the district judge specifically told Hunter: “You have a right to appeal.” And when the judge then gave the prosecutor, standing right there, a chance to make any objections, he said nothing. It therefore seems manifestly unfair after being told by the judge that he could appeal, that Hunter would then appeal and have his appeal dismissed based on the waiver. But the majority noted that smaller slip-ups like this, by themselves, were not enough to clear the high bar of this new miscarriage of justice rule.

The court’s ruling was in some ways par for the course in that it marked yet another rejection o…