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
According to Eric Shumsky, the dispute centers on a (C) agreement in which the government may give up filing a persistent felony certificate and may dismiss additional charges.
According to Ms. KOVNER, the parties argue over how the Marks rule should be applied and whether divided decisions of this Court have precedential effect.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Sotomayor, she asked whether there is any scenario in which a party would not be eligible for relief under the agreement.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Erik Lindsey Hughes)
According to Eric Shumsky, petitioner argues that the (C) agreement should allow the government to dismiss additional charges and not file a persistent felony certificate.
Respondent (United States)
According to Ms. KOVNER, respondent contends that the circuit split on the Marks rule should be resolved by rejecting the view that divided decisions lack precedential effect.
According to MS. KOVNER, respondent also argues that the court should consider whether the guidelines were merely calculated or actually relied upon in the decision.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the case: “We’ll hear first this morning Case 17‑155, Hughes versus the United States.”
Justice Sotomayor asked: “So are you conceding there’s no — you can’t imagine a scenario where someone wouldn’t be eligible?”
Justice Kagan asked: “So, in those circumstances, there is no result?”
Justice Alito asked: “Suppose that there’s a majority of the Court that agrees a particular party is entitled to relief, but there is no majority as to the provision of the Constitution that provides the relief. What happens in that situation?”
Justice Breyer asked: “What guidance?”
Justice Gorsuch asked: “No, I understand you’d like us to decide what we’re calling the Marks question, rather than just resolving what Freeman means.”
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor noted the Solicitor General’s statement that when a judge rejects a (C) agreement, the parties return to the starting point, allowing the government to keep its right to file the persistent felony certificate or prosecute dismissed charges.
- [1] 96c400d677a2d00665be-r1-e1cf2255faab63e8.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 96c400d677a2d00665be-r1-e1cf2255faab63e8.pdf, p. 9
- [3] 96c400d677a2d00665be-r1-e1cf2255faab63e8.pdf, p. 26
- [4] 96c400d677a2d00665be-r1-e1cf2255faab63e8.pdf, p. 28
- [5] 96c400d677a2d00665be-r1-e1cf2255faab63e8.pdf, p. 34
- [6] 96c400d677a2d00665be-r1-e1cf2255faab63e8.pdf, p. 47
- [7] 96c400d677a2d00665be-r1-e1cf2255faab63e8.pdf, p. 56
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.
- 96c400d677a2d00665be-r1-e1cf2255faab63e8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.