Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that "an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice." This week, the Court held that a government-ordered **** ysis of cellphone location data qualifies as a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.
In both cases, Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the result but wrote separately to highlight deeper issues that the majority did not address: the Supreme Court's endorsement of coercive plea bargaining and its embrace of two dubious Fourth Amendment doctrines. Gorsuch's opinions, which criticize precedents that have undermined civil liberties, illustrate his talent for identifying wrong turns that his colleagues are not yet ready to acknowledge.
The first case involved Munson P. Hunter III, who was sentenced to four years in federal prison after pleading guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. His sentence also included a requirement that he undergo psychiatric treatment after his release and "take all mental health medications" prescribed for him.
Hunter objected to the latter condition, saying it violated his "constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said he was not allowed to raise that issue because he had given up his right to contest any aspect of his sentence, as federal defendants usually do when they plead guilty.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying Hunter should be allowed to argue that forced medication qualifies as a "miscarriage of justice" because it is unconstitutional. Gorsuch concurred, noting that an appeal waiver can hardly be considered "knowing and voluntary" when the defendant does not yet know the details of his sentence.
In both cases, Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the result but wrote separately to highlight deeper issues that the majority did not address: the Supreme Court's endorsement of coercive plea bargaining and its embrace of two dubious Fourth Amendment doctrines. Gorsuch's opinions, which criticize precedents that have undermined civil liberties, illustrate his talent for identifying wrong turns that his colleagues are not yet ready to acknowledge.
The first case involved Munson P. Hunter III, who was sentenced to four years in federal prison after pleading guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. His sentence also included a requirement that he undergo psychiatric treatment after his release and "take all mental health medications" prescribed for him.
Hunter objected to the latter condition, saying it violated his "constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said he was not allowed to raise that issue because he had given up his right to contest any aspect of his sentence, as federal defendants usually do when they plead guilty.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying Hunter should be allowed to argue that forced medication qualifies as a "miscarriage of justice" because it is unconstitutional. Gorsuch concurred, noting that an appeal waiver can hardly be considered "knowing and voluntary" when the defendant does not yet know the details of his sentence.
1 month ago
