United States v. Sineneng-Smith - 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020)

Rule:

In the federal adversarial system of adjudication, courts follow the principle of party presentation. In both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal, courts rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present. In criminal cases, departures from the party presentation principle have usually occurred to protect a pro se litigant’s rights. But as a general rule, the federal court system is designed around the premise that parties represented by competent counsel know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief.

Facts:

Respondent Evelyn Sineneng-Smith operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California. She assisted clients working without authorization in the United States to file applications for a labor certification program that once provided a path for aliens to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. Sineneng-Smith knew that her clients could not meet the long-passed statutory application-filing deadline, but she nonetheless charged each client over $6,000, netting more than $3.3 million. Sineneng-Smith was indicted for multiple violations of 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Those provisions make it a federal felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law,” §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and impose an enhanced penalty if the crime is “done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain,” §1324(a)(1)(B)(i). In the District Court, she urged that the provisions did not cover her conduct, and if they did, they violated the Petition and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment as applied. The District Court rejected her arguments and she was convicted, as relevant here, on two counts under §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Sineneng-Smith essentially repeated the same arguments on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Again she asserted a right under the First Amendment to file administrative applications on her clients’ behalf, and she argued that the statute could not constitutionally be applied to her conduct. Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment. In accord with the amici’s arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad.

Issue:

Did the Ninth Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constitute an abuse of discretion?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the appeals panel had abused its discretion where, with Sineneng-Smith’s appeal of her 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324 convictions poised for decision based upon the parties' presentations, the panel intervened and ordered further briefing from three organizations on three areas of inquiry, including the overbreadth of § 1324. Thus, the panel had departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion.