U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith

Under the party presentation principle, a court’s role is to neutrally adjudicate cases as presented by the parties, not to reframe the controversy.

Respondent owned an immigration consulting firm.  She was convicted of violating immigration law, under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, in connection with her practice of filing paperwork long after the application-filing deadline had passed for clients seeking to gain legal status in the United States.  Respondent appealed her convictions to the Ninth Circuit, asserting vagueness and First Amendment arguments.  The Ninth Circuit’s appeals panel interceded, presented three issues of its own, allowed three amicus parties to file briefs, and permitted the amicus parties to make arguments on the three issues.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad.  The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion by taking the case so far afield from the issues Respondent had raised.  The Court reasoned that a court’s role is to act as a neutral referee of the cases presented by the parties.  Although there is some margin to allow a court to take over an appeal in order to protect a litigant’s rights, no such extraordinary circumstances existed in this case. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243­–244 (2008).  A court should be a passive instrument, not an advocate.  Therefore, it was inappropriate for the Ninth Circuit to admit the amicus parties and rule on the overbreadth inquiry.  VACATED and REMANDED.