9th circuit epic smackdown - and by Ginsburg (unanimous)

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.
Held: The Ninth Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion.
The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to framethe issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243.
That principle forecloses the controlling role the Ninth Circuit took on in this case. No extraordinary circumstances justified the panel’s takeover of the appeal. Sineneng-Smith, represented by competent counsel, had raised a vagueness argument and First Amendment arguments homing in on her own conduct, not that of others. Electing not to address the party-presented controversy, the panel projected that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) might cover a wide swath of protected speech, including abstract advocacy and legal advice. It did so even though Sineneng-Smith’s counsel had presented a contrary theory of the case in her briefs and before the District Court. A court is not hidebound by counsel’s precise arguments, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale. On remand, the case is to be reconsidered shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties. Pp. 3–9.
910 F. 3d 461, vacated and remanded.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Click to expand...

danb said:

Not a 2A case, but we all know the 9th abuses its discretion in those cases. I am putting here so that everyone can witness this.


link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-67_n6io.pdf


I mean really, we have seen this from the 9th in a lot of cases.



"beyond the pale" is pretty strong language from an 87 year old liberal!


really, this made my day. Other circuits, ahem, really should be on notice.

Click to expand...

Boxcab said:

The SCUS are overseer's to the lower courts... if I understand correctly. Maybe someone needs to sit them down and have a little heart-to-heart.

or

Maybe the newest set of Trump appointments will have an effect.

.

Click to expand...