News / FJP Releases

December 12, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) — Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP), together with the Cato Institute, Civil Rights Corps, American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, and the Rutherford Institute, filed an amicus brief in Munson P. Hunter III v. United States, calling on the United States Supreme Court to ensure that plea agreements do not prevent people from appealing unconstitutional sentences. The brief urges the Court to reverse a Fifth Circuit ruling that enforced an appeal waiver even after the sentencing judge expressly advised the defendant that he had a right to appeal and the government raised no objection.

The amicus brief addresses two central questions: whether an appeal waiver can block appellate review of an unconstitutional sentence, and whether that waiver remains valid if the sentencing judge later explicitly advises the defendant that they retain the right to appeal. In their filing, amici emphasize that unconstitutional sentences harm the public and should not be insulated from judicial review through plea bargaining. The brief also makes clear that oral statements by sentencing judges and the government’s acquiescence can modify or supersede written plea terms, and defendants must be able to trust and rely on what a judge tells them at sentencing.

“No one should ever be left serving an unlawful sentence with no path to appellate review,” said Fair and Just Prosecution Executive Director Aramis Ayala. “Plea agreements are not ordinary contracts. They are negotiated in conditions shaped by coercion, power imbalances, and limited information. 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 amicus brief details how appellate waivers, increasingly standard in federal plea agreements, function less as negotiated terms and more as mandatory conditions imposed by prosecutors. This practice limits judicial review at precisely the moments when oversight is most needed. It also risks enabling inconsistent or unlawful sentencing practices to persist unchecked, weakening both fairness and uniformity in federal courts.

This position aligns with FJP’s broader guidance to elected prosecutors on responsible plea bargaining practices, specifically emphasizing the importance of ensuring that negotiated agreements do not shield illegal sentences from oversight. In its “Issues at a Glance” brief on plea bargaining, FJP urges prosecutors to avoid conditioning plea offers on waivers of rights beyond the right to trial and to reject waivers that block appeals, limit access to exculpatory evidence, restrict post-conviction review, or undermine other safeguards that protect the accuracy and integrity of convictions and sentences.

FJP and its partners urge the Court to affirm that appellate waivers cannot bar review of unlawful sentences, particularly if a defendant is explicitly told that they retain the right to challenge the sentence on appeal.

Read the full amicus brief here.