Preserving Constitutional Challenges: The Path to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wade Wilson Case

February 6, 2026 Taylor Kurtz Firm News Social Share

Press Release

Michael Ufferman fully briefed the legal issues in the Wade Wilson case and preserved them for review. However, by the time the case came on for oral argument before the Florida Supreme Court, the Court had already issued its opinion in Hunt v. State on December 18, 2025, addressing the same controlling legal questions.

Once the Court announced its decision in Hunt, that opinion became binding precedent. Under longstanding principles of appellate practice and professional responsibility, counsel may not ask a court to disregard or relitigate issues the court has just resolved in a precedential opinion. Lawyers are ethically required to acknowledge controlling authority and to proceed within the framework the court has established. Re-arguing the same merits in the face of binding precedent would not have been appropriate or effective advocacy. Recognizing that reality at oral argument was not a concession of the issue, but adherence to the rules of precedent and professional ethics.

Michael continues to believe that applying the new 8–4 sentencing law to Wade’s case violates constitutional ex post facto principles. That challenge has not been halted. The issues were fully preserved, and the appropriate next step, in light of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Hunt, is to seek review in the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the proper forum to consider whether those constitutional questions warrant further examination.

Michael Ufferman remains committed to advocating zealously for his client while following the governing law and ethical obligations that apply to every attorney appearing before the Court. Because this remains an active and sensitive matter, we are limited in what we can say publicly but appreciate the opportunity to clarify the procedural posture.

---

  Social Share