United States v. Evelyn Sineneng-Smith

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit appeals panel abused its discretion by commandeering Evelyn Sineneng-Smith's appeal: it named three amici to brief and argue panel-framed questions—including whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad, a question she never raised—while relegating counsel for the parties to a secondary role. Declining to adjudicate the statute's merits, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded for reconsideration shorn of the interjected overbreadth inquiry and attuned to the case shaped by the parties. Justice Thomas, concurring, agreed the panel abused its discretion but argued the episode exposes deeper flaws in the Court's overbreadth doctrine itself, which he urged be revisited in an appropriate case.