WASHINGTON — A coalition of legal and civil rights organizations warned the U.S. Supreme Court this week that allowing plea agreements to block appeals of unconstitutional sentences would erode due process and harm public confidence in the justice system, filing an amicus brief that argues unconstitutional sentences should not be insulated from judicial review.
An amicus brief was filed by Fair and Just Prosecution, along with the Cato Institute, Civil Rights Corps, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, and the Rutherford Institute in Munson P. Hunter III v. United States.
According to Fair and Just Prosecution, the brief calls on the Supreme Court to prevent plea agreements from hindering people from appealing unconstitutional sentences and urges the court to reverse a Fifth Circuit ruling that upheld an appeal waiver even though the sentencing judge expressly stated that the accused retained the right to appeal.
In a report by Fair and Just Prosecution, FJP Executive Director Aramis Ayala said, “No one should ever be left serving an unlawful sentence with no path to appellate review.”
The amicus brief states that “unconstitutional sentences raise grave public concerns” and that “plea bargaining should not place unconstitutional sentences beyond appellate scrutiny,” arguing that petitioners and amici agree that waivers should remain within the bounds of the Constitution.
As reported by Fair and Just Prosecution, the amicus brief raised two central questions. First, it addressed whether appellate review of an unconstitutional sentence can be blocked by an appeal waiver. Second, it examined whether that waiver still applies when the sentencing judge later expressly advises the accused that the right to appeal remains intact.
The amicus brief emphasized that unconstitutional sentences “harm the public and should not be insulated from judicial review through plea bargaining,” according to Fair and Just Prosecution. The brief also stated that written plea terms are subject to modification or supersession by “oral statements by sentencing judges and the government’s acquiescence,” and that “plea agreements can be modified through trial judges’ oral statements, especially when accompanied by prosecutorial acquiescence.”
According to the same Fair and Just Prosecution report, Ayala said, “Plea agreements are not ordinary contracts. They are negotiated in conditions shaped by coercion, power imbalances, and limited information.”
She added, “When prosecutors use appeal waivers to block review of unconstitutional sentences, they undermine fairness, weaken due process, and erode trust in the justice system. Every community has an interest in a plea bargaining process that is transparent, accountable, and never shields illegal sentences from scrutiny.”
The brief also described how appellate waivers, which have become increasingly common in federal plea agreements, have taken on a different role. According to Fair and Just Prosecution, instead of serving as negotiated terms, appellate waivers now function more as mandatory conditions imposed by prosecutors.
As Fair and Just Prosecution reported, “This practice limits judicial review at precisely the moments when oversight is most needed.” The brief warned that this approach risks allowing inconsistent or unlawful sentencing practices to persist unchecked, diminishing “fairness and uniformity in federal courts.”
Fair and Just Prosecution said the position aligns with its broader guidance to elected prosecutors on responsible plea bargaining practices, including ensuring that negotiated agreements do not shield unlawful sentences from oversight.
In its “Issues at a Glance” brief on plea bargaining, Fair and Just Prosecution urges prosecutors to “avoid conditioning plea offers on waivers of rights beyond the right to trial,” according to the organization. The group also urges rejection of waivers that block appeals, limit access to evidence favorable to the accused, restrict post-conviction review, or compromise other safeguards intended to protect the accuracy and integrity of a conviction or sentence.
Ultimately, Fair and Just Prosecution and its partner organizations argue that the Supreme Court should affirm that appellate waivers cannot bar review of unlawful sentences, particularly when the accused has been expressly advised that the right to challenge the sentence on appeal remains intact.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
