Hunter v. United States · ¶121

The Court's decision today exercises a different kind of power. Hunter maintains that his plea agreement is a binding contract, and the appeal waiver it includes is generally enforceable as a matter of contract law. See Brief for Petitioner 2, 32; Tr. of Oral Arg. 44. In ruling for him, the Court therefore appears to empower lower courts to rewrite an otherwise binding agreement made by two parties. The parties agreed to permit appeals only for sentences that exceed the statutory maximum or that were tainted by ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, the Court has revised that contract and the waiver so that the defendant can also appeal a sentence after a miscarriage of justice. The power to supervise the federal courts' own internal processes cannot justify such an act.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.