This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The petitioner argues that the double‑jeopardy and prosecutorial vindictiveness claims were not explicitly waived in the plea agreement.
According to Ms. Amunson, the petitioner also contends that the plea agreement does not waive the right to appeal the conviction or to challenge the constitutionality of the sentence.
According to Mr. Feigin, the respondent (the United States) argues that several courts of appeals recognize implicit exceptions to appeal waivers, especially when a defendant challenges the underlying statute.
The transcript notes that a failure‑to‑appear charge was dropped in return for the plea agreement.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument began at 11:00 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the statute‑of‑limitations issue is treated the same as a waiver, noting that if it is not raised it cannot be raised later.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned how a statute might be interpreted after a guilty plea.
Justice Kagan asked whether a plea substitutes for a trial and forecloses issues unless the plea explicitly states otherwise.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch raised a historical question about “Haynes and 150 years of history.”
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan inquired how the respondent’s rule fits with prior cases such as Blackledge, Menna, and Broce.
- [1] 422570d1db1d27374306-r1-15455160321b4786.pdf, p. 2
- [2] 422570d1db1d27374306-r1-15455160321b4786.pdf, p. 9
- [3] 422570d1db1d27374306-r1-15455160321b4786.pdf, p. 28
- [4] 422570d1db1d27374306-r1-15455160321b4786.pdf, p. 25
- [5] 422570d1db1d27374306-r1-15455160321b4786.pdf, p. 49
- [6] 422570d1db1d27374306-r1-15455160321b4786.pdf, p. 59
What each side argues
Petitioner (Rodney Class)
The petitioner maintains that the double‑jeopardy and prosecutorial vindictiveness claims were not expressly waived in the plea agreement.
According to Ms. Amunson, the petitioner argues that the plea agreement does not waive the right to appeal the conviction or to challenge the constitutionality of the sentence.
The petitioner contends that any error must be clear on the face of the indictment and the record at the time of pleading guilty, citing the Court’s opinion in Broce.
Respondent (United States of America)
The respondent, through counsel Mr. Feigin, argues that several courts of appeals have created implicit exceptions to appeal waivers, particularly when a defendant challenges the statute underlying the conviction.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:00 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
Mr. Eric J. Feigin presented arguments on behalf of the respondent.
Justices asked a series of questions concerning waiver, statutory interpretation, and historical context during the argument.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 422570d1db1d27374306-r1-15455160321b4786.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.