United States v. Sineneng-Smith

From 1990 to 2008, Evelyn Sineneng-Smith operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California, primarily serving Filipino immigrants working in home healthcare. She charged clients over $6,000 each to file labor certification applications, despite knowing the program had expired in 2001 and her clients were ineligible. She earned over $3.3 million through this scheme. In 2010, she was indicted for encouraging illegal immigration for financial gain and mail fraud. After a 12-day jury trial in 2013, she was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit, instead of addressing the arguments raised by the parties, invited amici to brief whether the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad and struck it down on that basis. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment. In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the panel's drastic departure from the party presentation principle constituted an abuse of discretion, as no extraordinary circumstances justified the court's takeover of the appeal. The case was remanded for reconsideration limited to the controversy as framed by the parties.

Whether the Ninth Circuit panel abused its discretion by departing from the principle of party presentation when it invited amici to argue, and then held, that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment—an issue never raised by the parties.

The decision reaffirmed the adversarial system's party presentation principle, limiting judicial overreach. It raised concerns that the underlying statute could criminalize protected speech, potentially chilling immigration advocacy, legal advice, and community assistance to undocumented individuals. The ruling did not resolve the statute's constitutionality, leaving that question open for future cases.