Nunez v. United States
The Supreme Court granted review, wiped out the appeals court's ruling, and sent the case back so the Seventh Circuit could take another look, based on a new position the government laid out in its brief.
Three justices dissented, objecting that the Court was undoing a lower court's decision without any real finding that it was wrong, based only on the government's unconvincing suggestion about how a plea waiver should be read.
How it got here: A federal district court denied habeas relief; the Seventh Circuit affirmed based on a collateral-review waiver; the petitioner asked the Supreme Court to review the ineffective-assistance claim.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Armando Nunez pleaded guilty to federal drug crimes and gave up his rights to appeal or later challenge his conviction. He says he told his lawyer to file a notice of appeal anyway, but the lawyer refused. Nunez then argued in a habeas petition that his lawyer's refusal amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, even though he had signed away his appeal rights.
The question before the Court
If a man waived his right to appeal and to challenge his conviction later, could he still argue his lawyer's refusal to file a notice of appeal was ineffective assistance?
Why it matters
This case illustrates how the Supreme Court sometimes sends cases back to lower courts without deciding anything on the merits, simply because the government's lawyers suggest a different legal theory. Critics worry this practice can force appeals courts to redo work and even create disagreements between circuits on questions the Supreme Court could have resolved itself.
What changes now
The case returns to the Seventh Circuit, which will reconsider its ruling in light of the government's suggested reading of the plea waiver. The Supreme Court did not decide whether Nunez's lawyer was ineffective or how broadly the waiver should be read — those questions remain for the lower court. If the Seventh Circuit reaches the same outcome, a split with other circuits could emerge.
What this does not decide
The order does not decide whether Nunez's attorney was constitutionally ineffective, nor does it resolve how broadly his plea-agreement waiver should be read. It only sends the case back for the appeals court to reconsider that waiver question in light of the government's new position.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Scalia
“we have no power to vacate a judgment that has not been shown to be (or been conceded to be) in error”Scalia's core objection to vacating a lower court ruling without a finding of error.
Justice Scalia argued the Court had no authority to vacate a lower court's judgment without finding it was actually wrong or having the government concede error. He said the government's brief never claimed the Seventh Circuit's judgment was incorrect, only that its reasoning about the waiver's scope might be wrong. He found that suggestion unconvincing and warned it could create a split among the circuits on the underlying ineffective-assistance question.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court's order relied on the practice known as GVR — granting certiorari, vacating the judgment below, and remanding the case — which the Court sometimes uses when the government suggests the lower court's reasoning may have been flawed.
- The dissent explained that this practice traditionally applies when the government concedes that a judgment is actually wrong, not merely when it questions the reasoning used to reach the judgment.
- Here, the government's brief did not say the appeals court's ultimate ruling was incorrect; it only argued that the court had misread the scope of the waiver in Nunez's plea agreement, while still believing the case should come out the same way.
- The dissent found the government's alternative reading of the waiver unpersuasive, noting that Nunez had separately agreed to the broader waiver during his in-court plea colloquy.
- The dissent also warned that sending the case back on this basis could lead the appeals court to reach the same result through a different route, creating a conflict with at least six other circuits that had ruled differently on the underlying ineffective-assistance question.