<![CDATA[WALK 4 CHANGE - THE STORIES]]>

<![CDATA[WALK 4 CHANGE - THE STORIES]]>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 19:19:01 -0700EditMySite<![CDATA[US conservatives sue to dismantle Native Hawaiian healthcare scholarships]]>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 16:36:40 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/us-conservatives-sue-to-dismantle-native-hawaiian-healthcare-scholarshipsIn a press release about the lawsuit, Do No Harm said the scholarship’s requirement that applicants be “Native Hawaiians” was a violation of federal law and tantamount to “racial discrimination”.

The medical advocacy group Do No Harm filed a federal lawsuit in April 2026 to dismantle the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program (NHHSP), arguing that its race-based eligibility criteria are unconstitutional.

Key Details of the Lawsuit

Legal Challenge: The lawsuit, filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), claims the program violates federal law by discriminating based on race and ethnicity.
Plaintiff's Argument: Do No Harm represents three anonymous individuals who were reportedly barred from applying because they are not Native Hawaiian. The group argues that medical care should not be based on "culturally responsive" theories they claim are debunked.
Defense Perspective: Papa Ola Lōkahi, the nonprofit that administers the program, defends it as a vital tool to address disproportionately high rates of chronic illness and health disparities in Native Hawaiian communities.
Broader Context: This challenge follows the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in university admissions. It is part of a wider effort by conservative legal groups to target diversity-focused programs, including a similar ongoing case against the admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools.

About the Scholarship Program

Established by Congress under the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, the NHHSP provides full tuition and a monthly stipend to students in exchange for a commitment to serve in medically underserved areas of Hawaii. Since its inception, it has supported more than 320 Native Hawaiian healthcare professionals.

]]><![CDATA[Eighth Jane Doe Files $8M Complaint Against Army in McGraw Sexual Abuse Case]]>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:34:21 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/eighth-jane-doe-files-8m-complaint-against-army-in-mcgraw-sexual-abuse-caseHad the Army listened to these red flags along the way, there would not be this many victims.

An eighth Jane Doe has filed an $8 million legal complaint against the United States Army and Department of Defense, alleging that former Dr. Blaine McGraw sexually abused her during medical appointments at the Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) administrative complaint, which also names the Defense Health Agency, was filed Tuesday by the law firm Sanford Heisler—which previously filed seven FTCA complaints in December 2025 on behalf of Jane Does 1-7, whose complaints allege they were also sexually abused by McGraw at Tripler Medical Center and Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center in Fort Hood, Texas.

Tort claims under federal statute permits individuals to bring legal challenges against federal agencies, with an administrative complaint first being filed against an agency allegedly at fault. After a six-month period afforded to an agency to investigate, a litigant can then file suit in federal court.

“[McGraw] clearly had an M.O.,” attorney Christine Dunn, who is representing Jane Doe 8, stated. “He engaged in unnecessary medical exams that really rose to the level of sexual abuse, and I think that's evident in some of the claims we filed in December.
“It's evident in the one we filed today, where he did gratuitous multiple breast exams, those kinds of things. There are a lot of similarities, which is not surprising.”

A DOD spokesperson deferred comment to the Army.

An Army spokesperson said the service does not comment on ongoing litigation.

McGraw's Many Charges

It was previously reported that Maj. McGraw is currently facing numerous criminal charges for secretly recording dozens of female patients in the military medical system.

On Dec. 9, 2025, the U.S. Army Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) announced that it had preferred four charges and 61 specifications against the obstetrician gynecologist who was assigned to the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center located in Fort Hood.

McGraw is charged with 54 specifications for indecent visual recording, five specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer, one specification of willful disobedience of a superior officer, and one specification of making a false official statement in violation of multiple articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Army previously stated that leaders suspended McGraw and began investigating him “within hours” after receiving a patient complaint in October 2025. He was serving as an OBGYN at Darnall Medical Center at the time of his arrest.

Complaint: McGraw 'Caused Great Distress'

A redacted seven-page complaint states that Jane Doe 8 began seeing McGraw at Triper Medical Center as she was seeking to establish a relationship with a new obstetrician-gynecologist (OBG-YN).

The redacted complaint does not show the number of times they met, though notes how not all of Jane Doe’s visits were documented in Genesis, the patient portal.

The complaint alleges that McGraw “performed unnecessary medical exams on me,” including breast and abdominal exams at multiple appointments when “there was especially no medical reason for so many breast exams.

”McGraw purportedly never asked Jane Doe if she preferred a chaperone during visits, and he allegedly remained in the small room with her as she undressed.

She added that in the middle of her appointments, McGraw allegedly answered text messages and phone calls, which she found “inappropriate” and increasingly concerned her that “he videotaped me during these visits without my consent.”

He also allegedly commented on her breasts, mentioning “how good” they looked.

“His comments struck me as sexual in nature rather than medical, and made me feel exposed, objectified and unsafe in what should have been a professional, medical setting,” the complaint says.

Army Ignored 'Red Flags'

Dunn said she expects more victims of McGraw to come forward due to the number of patients he had combined with the fortitude of the eight women who so far have filed complaints.

When asked about the Army’s culpability and whether they did their due diligence when all of McGraw’s purported nefarious activities took place, Dunn said “there were warning signs along the way” and referenced recent media reports alleging such behavior at Tripler.

Other questions the Army is being asked to answer include how much it knew, when it knew it, and why it took so long and so many victims until McGraw was relieved of his duties and later criminally charged.

Dunn said just knowing should have been “bad enough,” but having actual knowledge of what occurred and looking the other way would rise to something “really problematic.” The complaints speak for themselves, she added.

"I think it's important for a lot of reasons,” Dunn said. “I think it's empowering for survivors to come forward and to tell their stories. I think it's empowering for other survivors who may not have come forward yet to see that people experienced similar victimization.

“And I think it's powerful because it puts pressure on the Army. It lets the Army know that there are a lot of women out there who are not going to stand for this behavior and that are calling for accountability.”

A preliminary hearing for the original charges was waived by McGraw. The next step is for a neutral officer to be assigned and a date scheduled to conduct a preliminary hearing, the latter of which is required before charges can be referred for trial by general court-martial pursuant to Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

]]><![CDATA[A Victory for Victims of Sex Trafficking]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 17:43:38 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/a-victory-for-victims-of-sex-traffickingThe ruling in C.B. v. Naseeb Investments, Inc. (consolidated with claims against Northbrook Industries) clarifies the evidentiary standards for "beneficiary" claims against property owners.

In a landmark decision issued on March 30, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived three civil lawsuits brought by survivors of child sex trafficking, ruling that hotels can be held liable under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) without having specific knowledge of individual victims.

Key Legal Clarifications

Knowledge Element: The court ruled that the TVPRA's knowledge requirement can be met if a hotel was aware of "apparent sex trafficking activities" on its premises, even if staff did not know the identity of specific victims.
Constructive Knowledge: Liability may arise from a hotel's failure to recognize and respond to common indicators of trafficking, such as frequent cash payments, guests arriving at odd hours, or unusual requests from tenants.
Participation in the Venture: The panel clarified that "participation" does not require involvement in the illegal act itself. Instead, it can include "customizing or enabling" the activity—such as staff selling condoms to victims or allowing them into rooms without identification—while profiting from the business.

Impact on Litigation

Attorneys for the survivors state the opinion "makes it easier for survivors to get to a jury" by lowering the barrier to entry for civil trials. By reversing previous summary judgment wins for the hotels, the Eleventh Circuit has signaled that circumstantial evidence of a hotel "turning a blind eye" may be sufficient to proceed to trial.

The cases involved the United Inn and Suites in DeKalb County and the Hilltop Inn in Conley, Georgia.

]]><![CDATA[Forced Sterilization of Native American Women]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 05:34:46 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/forced-sterilization-of-native-american-womenIHS physicians sterilized at least 25 percent of American Indian women between the ages of fifteen and forty-four. Cheyenne tribal judge Marie Sanchez questioned fifty Cheyenne women and discovered that IHS doctors had sterilized twenty-six of them.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the United States government, primarily through the Indian Health Service (IHS), oversaw a campaign of forced and coerced sterilization of Native American women. Investigations and researchers estimate that between 25% and 50% of Native women of childbearing age were sterilized between 1970 and 1976 alone.

Scope and Scale of the Practice

Total Numbers: Estimates suggest that up to 70,000 Native American women may have been sterilized throughout the 20th century.
Government Audit: A 1976 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) confirmed that 3,406 women were sterilized without proper consent in just four of the 12 IHS regions between 1973 and 1976.
Age of Victims: The GAO found that at least 36 women under the age of 21 were sterilized despite a court-ordered moratorium on the practice for that age group. Some reports indicate girls as young as 9 to 11 years old were targeted.

Methods of Coercion and Lack of Consent

Deception: Many women were sterilized during unrelated surgeries, such as appendectomies, without being told.
Coercion: Physicians threatened women with the loss of welfare benefits or healthcare if they did not "consent" to the procedure.
Misinformation: Doctors frequently told women the procedures (like tubal ligations) were reversible when they were not.
Inadequate Consent: Nurses sometimes forced women in active, painful labor or under heavy sedation to sign consent forms.

Motivations for the Policy

Eugenics and Racism: The practices were rooted in early 20th-century eugenics movements that deemed Native Americans "unfit" to reproduce.
Economic Pressures: Under the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970, the government subsidized sterilizations for Medicaid and IHS patients. Some doctors believed they were reducing the "tax burden" by limiting births in low-income minority families.
Paternalism: Many white male physicians believed Native women lacked the intelligence to use other forms of birth control effectively.

Resistance and Lasting Impact

Activism: Native women formed groups like Women of All Red Nations (WARN) in 1974 to expose the abuse and fight for reproductive autonomy.
Population Decline: In some communities, birth rates plummeted by 75% by the end of the 1970s.
Intergenerational Trauma: The campaign caused deep-seated distrust of the federal healthcare system that persists in Native communities today.
Current Recognition: States like New Mexico (2025/2026), Vermont (2023), and California (2024) have recently launched truth commissions or reparations programs to address this history.

]]><![CDATA[Idaho governor signs law making transgender bathroom use a felony]]>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 04:15:14 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/idaho-governor-signs-law-making-transgender-bathroom-use-a-felonyGov. Brad Little signed the measure on Transgender Day of Visibility as advocates rallied outside the statehouse

Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, signed a bill Tuesday criminalizing transgender people for using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, enacting one of the nation’s most sweeping restrictions on public accommodations and marking a new phase in the state’s effort to regulate where transgender people can exist in public life.

Little signed House Bill 752 at about 4:50 p.m., according to a daily tracking log released by the governor’s office. Idaho advocate Nikson Mathews said the governor acted as activists gathered outside the statehouse for a Transgender Day of Visibility rally.

The law makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” enter a restroom or changing facility that does not align with one’s sex assigned at birth in a government building or place of public accommodation. A first offense is punishable by up to one year in jail. A second conviction within five years can be charged as a felony, carrying a potential sentence of up to five years in prison.

Advocacy groups condemned the measure as punitive and dangerous.

“Sending someone to prison just for using the bathroom is nothing but pure, unfiltered cruelty,” said Delphine Luneau, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign. “Anti-equality Idaho officials have displayed exactly that kind of animosity by passing a law that would put transgender people behind bars for using the restroom and subject people to harassment and discrimination in the most private of spaces. This is a blatant and unconscionable attack on their own constituents that risks ruining the lives of innocent people while doing nothing to address the actual concerns of Idaho families.”

The legislation cleared the Idaho Senate on Thursday after passing the House, moving from introduction to enactment at an unusual pace for a bill carrying criminal penalties.

Law enforcement groups had warned the measure would be difficult to enforce. Organizations, including the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association, said it could place officers in the position of determining a person’s “biological sex” or weighing whether someone qualifies for an exception, decisions critics say are inherently subjective.

]]><![CDATA[A Proud Tribe Fights for Federal Recognition]]>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 02:13:36 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/a-proud-tribe-fights-for-federal-recognitionWhile most Americans recognize the Chinook as a versatile military workhorse, few know it is named after one of North America’s most prestigious indigenous tribes – the Chinook Indian Nation.

Sam Robinson is fighting to change that.

Robinson is an Army veteran and a proud Chinook Councilmember. For years, he’s worked to gain federal recognition and honor the Chinook’s namesake. Robinson wonders why the country he served granted honorary name recognition to the Chinook in 2001, only to rescind it 18 months later.

Many Native Americans join the military for financial reasons, a pathway to college, or based on family tradition. Robinson was no exception. Having a brother, father and uncles who all served, Robinson felt a gravitational pull to join the military.

“Once I turned 18, I knew that college wasn’t my path, so enlisting felt like a practical option that I would take pride in,” Robinson told Military.com. “About six months before high school graduation, I went to an Army recruiter and signed up for delayed entry so that I could leave for service right after high school.”

Robinson served in the Army for four years. He spent the first year in infantry, then was selected for a new anti-tank platoon, managing two missile systems. From there, he was sent to brigade headquarters, becoming a sergeant in only three years.

“Which I was proud of because it showed how much I had learned in such a short period of time,” he said.

One of Robinson’s favorite memories from the Army was flying in a Chinook – that’s right, a Chinook in a Chinook. It was a unique experience that left Robinson swelling with pride.

“I was out in the field working when a captain asked me for a ride. On the way back, he recognized the pilot of a Chinook sitting out there and struck up a conversation. After they talked, the pilot allowed me to back my Jeep into the helicopter and take a ride in it,” Robinson said. “One thing I remember vividly is how noisy it was inside. I had always been a fan of the helicopter, and I felt especially proud to be a Chinook man who had gotten to ride in a Chinook helicopter.”

Robinson’s four years in the military taught him how to adapt to changes and learn on the fly. But he had strong mentors to guide him, seasoned soldiers from the Vietnam War, full of wisdom. He also learned strong leadership skills, which led to a 43-year career in wood products manufacturing, where he served as a plant manager.

“I saw a lot of different leadership styles in the military, and it taught me that if you want people to respect you, you should not ask them to do anything you would not do yourself,” Robinson said. “You get more respect and better work out of people that way. That really stayed with me and carried me into my working life."

A Proud Nation in the Pacific Northwest

American history buffs are likely pretty familiar with the Chinook Indian Nation and its ties to the famed Lewis and Clark Expedition in the early 1800s.

The Chinooks were the first tribe to settle the Lower Columbia River and the Pacific Coast region, now known as Washington and Oregon. The nation is comprised of five tribes: the Clatsop, Cathlamet, Lower Chinook, Wahkiakum, and Willapa. Centuries later, most of the nation’s 3,400 enrolled members still call the Pacific Northwest their home.

“The Chinook are alive and well,” Robinson said. “We are a living nation, not a people of the past, which is exactly why the federal government’s refusal to formally recognize us is so harmful.”

Despite the nation’s history in helping the American government during the time of Lewis and Clark, Chinook members serving in the military, and lending its name to what Robinson calls “one of the Army’s most recognizable helicopters,” federal recognition has been painfully fleeting.

“Federal recognition) is the formal acknowledgment of a tribe’s sovereignty and government-to-government relationship with the United States,” Robinson said. “Being a federally recognized tribe would grant us resources that other tribes receive, like healthcare access and education programs.”

For many years, the Army adopted names of Native American tribes or chiefs and used them for its aircraft. So, when the powerful, robust CH-47 Chinook entered the fleet in 1962, naming it after the tribe made sense. The practice became official in 1969 through Army Regulation 70-28, establishing names that promoted strength, agility and endurance.

“The name is fitting,” Robinson said. “Our people have endured generations of broken promises and mistreatment from politicians in D.C., yet we’ve always fought to remain on, and protect, our ancestral homelands.”

Still Hope for Recognition?

Receiving federal recognition allows a tribe to be formally acknowledged by the U.S., establishing governmental relationships. Without it, tribes are denied full political status, resources, and certain protections that the federal government gives to recognized tribes.

There was a glimmer of hope for the Chinook in 2001 when the nation received recognition, but that dream quickly died 18 months later when the act was rescinded.

In other ways, however, the U.S. can’t seem to get enough of the Chinook. Not only is the iconic Army helicopter named after the tribe, but the government has also signed treaties with tribal ancestors, and the state of Washington is unofficially nicknamed the “Chinook State.”

For Robinson, and so many Chinook, the situation is confusing and frustrating.

“The question we keep coming back to is: if you acknowledge us enough to put our name on your helicopter, why not formally recognize our nation?” he said. “Without that, none of the acknowledgment we’ve received translates into real, tangible support for our people.”

Hope is not lost, however. Robinson said the Chinook Justice Movement is working to restore federal recognition through legislation, support from local and regional leaders, neighboring tribes in Washington and Oregon, descendants of Lewis and Clark, and, according to Robinson, “tens of thousands of Americans who have signed petitions and written letters.”

Ultimately, federal recognition must come from Congress through legislation signed into law. The same members of Congress who just a few weeks ago heard Trump glowingly praise the “massive Chinook.”

]]><![CDATA[The Continued Fight Against Law Firm Intimidation]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 06:12:31 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/the-continued-fight-against-law-firm-intimidationIn steadfast support of its members and the legal profession at large, the American Bar Association continues its efforts to combat industry-chilling attacks on the profession, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the current administration’s unlawful policy of intimidation against lawyers and law firms.

In early March 2026, a high-profile court hearing took place regarding the American Bar Association's (ABA) lawsuit against the Trump administration's "Law Firm Intimidation Policy".

Hearing Details

Case Name: American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, et al.
Date: March 4, 2026
Location: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Key Argument: The hearing focused on the government's motion to dismiss the case. The Justice Department (DOJ) argued the ABA lacks standing because its members face no "imminent threat," while the ABA contended the policy has already created an "industry-chilling" effect.

The "Intimidation Policy" Background
The lawsuit challenges a series of executive orders and memoranda that targeted specific law firms (such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block) for their past legal work against the administration. These actions included:

Restricting Access: Threatening to bar attorneys from federal buildings and courthouses.
Security Clearances: Suspending or stripping national security clearances for lawyers at targeted firms.
Contractual Penalties: Threatening to disqualify firms from government contracts or penalize clients who use them.

Current Status
The court has heard arguments from both sides, and a written decision on the motion to dismiss is expected soon. While the DOJ briefly considered dropping its appeals of lower court rulings that had already blocked some of these orders, it later reversed that decision, signaling it will continue to defend the policy.

]]><![CDATA[Ending the Chaos of Trump's Attack of Birthright Citizenship]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 05:49:42 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/ending-the-chaos-of-trumps-attack-of-birthright-citizenship“The framers of the 14th Amendment were specifically acting to prevent government officials from interfering with native-born Americans' citizenship and they would be dismayed by what the president is trying to do today.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara on April 1, 2026. This landmark case will determine the constitutionality of a January 20, 2025, executive order that seeks to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or on temporary visas.

The Case: Trump v. Barbara

Central Issue: The Court will decide if the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause—which grants citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"—protects children of non-permanent residents.
Government Argument: The administration contends that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes those not in the country lawfully or permanently, arguing the Amendment was originally intended for freed slaves rather than visitors or undocumented persons.
Challenger Argument: Civil rights groups, including the ACLU and NAACP, argue that birthright citizenship has been a bedrock principle for over 150 years, solidified by the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Current Status: The executive order is currently blocked by lower courts and has never gone into effect.

Key Historical Precedents

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): Established that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents, regardless of the parents' status.
Plyler v. Doe (1982): The Court observed that undocumented immigrants and their children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. because they must follow its civil and criminal laws.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): A widely repudiated ruling that denied citizenship to Black Americans; the 14th Amendment was specifically ratified to overturn this decision.

Upcoming Timeline

Oral Arguments: April 1, 2026.
Expected Ruling: Late June or early July 2026.

A final decision in favor of the administration would represent a major shift in constitutional law, potentially creating a "permanent subclass" of individuals born on U.S. soil without citizenship rights.

]]><![CDATA[Former Federal Anti-Corruption Chief Spells Out Long-Term Consequences of DOJ’s ‘Illness’]]>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 22:53:13 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/former-federal-anti-corruption-chief-spells-out-long-term-consequences-of-dojs-illnessJohn Keller, the former head of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Public Corruption Unit, recently warned that a "broader kind of illness" at the agency—marked by political interference and erosion of norms—could have consequences lasting for "years, if not decades"

Keller’s remarks were made during a March 2026 panel titled "Abusing the Justice Department" at a symposium sponsored by the Fordham School of Law and the American Bar Association

Protest Resignation: Keller resigned in February 2025 in protest of a Trump administration directive to halt the prosecution of former New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
Loss of Public and Judicial Trust: He argued that the DOJ no longer receives the "benefit of the doubt" and now faces skepticism from both the public and the bench. Former judge Shira Scheindlin noted at the same event that judges no longer trust the government to report facts honestly.
Deterrence of Future Cases: Keller speculated that future prosecutors may decline to pursue high-profile corruption cases because the public may no longer trust the department's motives.
Institutional Instability: The panel discussed broader issues under the current administration, including the firing of career prosecutors, ignored court orders, and the legally questionable installation of U.S. attorneys Perspectives from Other Former Officials

Maurene Comey: A former star prosecutor fired in July 2025, she characterized the DOJ as "approaching a crisis". She emphasized that new recruits now need "moral fortitude" to refuse unethical orders.
Staffing Concerns: Reports indicate the DOJ has lost over 100 career leaders since January 2025, leading to significant concerns regarding its long-term expertise and operational capacity.

]]><![CDATA['Racist Sentencing Judge?': DOJ Stuns Supreme Court With Stance on Appeal Waivers]]>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 22:42:05 GMThttps://www.walk4change.us/the-stories/racist-sentencing-judge-doj-stuns-supreme-court-with-stance-on-appeal-waiversThe U.S. Justice Department struggled to convince the justices that plea bargained waivers of appeal should be enforceable even in cases where the judge sentenced a defendant for a sexist, racist or other arbitrary reason.

The U.S. Department of Justice's hard line on enforcing plea bargained waivers of appeal took U.S. Supreme Court justices aback Tuesday.

The high court heard arguments in the case Hunter v. U.S., which deals with whether defendants can—in certain egregious circumstances—appeal a prison sentence notwithstanding having waived their appellate rights through a plea agreement with prosecutors.

Plea agreements are a relatively modern phenomenon that have become commonplace in the U.S. criminal justice system, with an estimated 98% percent of federal convictions now reached through these deals between defendants and prosecutors. Many plea agreements include provisions whereby defendants agree not to appeal the sentence handed down by the court.

The DOJ struggled to convince the Supreme Court on Tuesday that those appellate waivers should be enforceable even in cases where the judge sentenced a defendant for a sexist, racist or other arbitrary reason.

What about "a racist sentencing judge?" Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, incredulously.

"Our position is that it is enforceable," Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Zoe Jacoby responded on behalf of the government.

"A sexist sentencing judge?" Gorsuch said.

"Yes," Jacoby answered.

"Someone who is biased against religious minorities?" Gorsuch said.

"Yes," Jacoby responded. "The appeal waiver is enforceable."

Jacoby acknowledged that her position sounded "very harsh" but insisted it was necessary so that the government receives the full "benefit of the bargain" in a plea agreement. She said recognizing additional exceptions to appellate waivers would open the floodgates and defeat the purpose of those agreements in the first place.

But several justices appeared unconvinced.

Gorsuch suggested there should be exceptions to appeal waivers in circumstances that "bring disrepute on the federal judiciary." He hypothesized a sentencing judge who allowed an orangutan to pick a sentence out of a hat.

Jacoby did not dispute that that too would be covered by the appellate waiver.

The government appeared to lose ground following the exchange, with Justice Elena Kagan saying to Jacoby, "Just out of curiosity… what’s your back-line position?"

The high court is considering the case of Munson Hunter II, who entered into a plea agreement containing an appellate waiver in his financial fraud prosecution. Hunter is now seeking to challenge a condition later imposed at sentencing that requires him to take medication prescribed by a doctor, which goes against Hunter's religious beliefs.

His lawyer, Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly, argued it would be "absurd" to refuse to permit Hunter to assert a "contract defense" to his appellate waiver, while allowing business tycoons such as Elon Musk to make such arguments in contract disputes. She said sentencing judges would be allowed to impose egregious sentencing conditions, such as castration or forbidding extramarital pregnancy, adding such sentences have occurred in the past.

The sentencing judge said of Hunter that "it might be easier if this guy were medicated," Blatt told Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. during another colorful exchange during the hearing.

"That's preposterous," Blatt added. "I mean it might be easier if you [Roberts] were medicated, too, for my job. That’s not how you get to medicate people.”

The high court appeared broadly sympathetic to allowing defendants to get around appellate waivers beyond the two narrow circumstances identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit below: ineffective assistance of counsel and a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum.

For example, Kagan suggested that the court recognize an additional exception for a "miscarriage of justice," making clear that is a high bar for lower courts to meet. She said the Supreme Court can, as the de facto supervisor of the federal judiciary, make sure that certain egregious sentences do not stand.

The Supreme Court is expected to render its decision by July.

]]>