argument this morning in case 24, 1063 Hunter versus United States.

Ms. Blatt.

Mr. Chief Justice, a man please the Court, all contracts are subject to defenses.

So appeal waivers are also subject to defenses and can be excused in more circumstances than

the two recognized below.

The government argues that no contract defense can apply to knowing and voluntary appeal waivers,

no exceptions.

But if appeal waivers bind defendants under contract principles, they can be excused under contract principles.

A contrary approach is anathema to our criminal justice system.

No appeal for sentences above the statutory maximum,

based on race, religion, national origin, tribal status, or peer vindictiveness.

No appeal for pregnancy bans, castration, or compelled church attendance either.

These scenarios are all real cases. Or take this case, only the most paramount government interest

overcomes the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. But Hunter was sentenced to a

mandatory medical condition, even though he had no mental health issues, let alone one

connected to the crime or related to any sentencing goal. Defendants bargained for caps on

their sentencing exposure. Those bargains

are destroyed by plainly unlawful sentences that are totally outside the realm of plausibility

of either party. Now, Fledgate's concerns are belied by decades of experience in the 11 circuits

that reject the Fifth Circuit's rule. Applying defenses to appeal waivers maintains the status quo.

Contract defenses are narrow by design and rarely satisfied. Appeal waivers will continue to bar

the vast majority of alleged sentencing errors, guidelines miscalculations, insufficient explanation,

...