Nunez v. United States
Headline: Court grants review, vacates lower judgment, and remands over a dispute about a plea-agreement waiver, affecting whether a convicted defendant can pursue an ineffective-lawyering claim.
Holding: The Court granted review, vacated the appeals court’s judgment, and remanded the defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim for reconsideration in light of the Solicitor General’s brief about the plea-waiver’s scope.
- Requires the appeals court to reconsider whether the plea waiver bars the ineffective-assistance claim.
- Vacates the lower judgment and sends the case back for further review.
- Could create or deepen disagreements among federal appeals courts on waiver scope.
Summary
Background
A man who pleaded guilty to federal narcotics charges gave up most appeal and collateral-review rights in his plea agreement. He later said his lawyer was ineffective because the lawyer refused to file an appeal notice when the man asked. The man sought habeas relief, the trial court denied it, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, saying the plea agreement’s waiver barred his claim.
Reasoning
The Government asked the Supreme Court to grant review, vacate the appeals court judgment, and send the case back for reconsideration because the Solicitor General said the lower court may have misread the waiver. The Supreme Court’s majority followed that suggestion and ordered a vacatur and remand for the Seventh Circuit to consider the Solicitor General’s brief filed May 12, 2008. Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas, dissented from the Court’s order, arguing the Government did not concede the judgment was wrong and that the Court should not set aside a lower court decision absent a clear showing of error.
Real world impact
The order forces the appeals court to reexamine whether the plea waiver prevents the ineffective-lawyering claim. It shows that the Government’s changed position can prompt the Supreme Court to vacate and send cases back. Justice Scalia warned that such a remand could help create or deepen disagreements among multiple federal appeals courts about how broadly plea waivers apply.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Scalia objected that vacating a judgment without a concession of error is improper, defended the lower court’s reading of the waiver, and emphasized risks of creating circuit splits.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?