1 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Jun 24
Summary
Eight orangutan references punctuated a recent Supreme Court ruling that drew fresh attention to how prosecutors secure guilty pleas and bar defendants from appealing their sentences.
Neil Gorsuch, joined by the court’s two liberal justices, sharply questioned appeal waivers, saying at arguments they could block challenges even if a judge “let an orangutan pick a sentence out of a hat.”
The case centers on whether prosecutors may use the threat of long prison terms to extract both guilty pleas and promises not to appeal any part of the punishment.
The ruling landed in the Supreme Court’s final stretch, when a dozen decisions remain and bigger cases on birthright citizenship, agency independence, voting and immigration are still pending.
How will the Court's decisions on presidential power impact America's economy and regulatory landscape?
If birthright citizenship is redefined, what does this mean for the future of American identity and society?
Supreme Court’s 8-1 Ruling in Hunter v. United States Creates “Miscarriage of Justice” Exception to Federal Plea Deal Waivers
Overview
On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in Hunter v. United States, creating a major new exception to federal appellate waivers. The Court introduced the 'miscarriage of justice' standard, ruling that if enforcing an appellate waiver would result in a fundamental injustice, the waiver cannot be enforced. This decision came after Munson Hunter III challenged a forced-medication condition imposed at sentencing, arguing it was unfair despite his signed waiver. The ruling resolves a long-standing split among lower courts and sets a clear, nationwide rule to protect defendants from egregious legal errors.