United States v. Sineneng-Smith

Background

Evelyn Sineneng-Smith ran an immigration consulting business in San Jose and helped mostly Filipino clients file labor-certification forms. She knew the applications missed a statutory deadline and nonetheless charged large fees, collecting more than $3.3 million. She was indicted and convicted under a federal law that forbids encouraging or inducing noncitizens to reside in the United States knowing it may be unlawful, with a harsher penalty when done for financial gain. In district court she argued the law did not reach her conduct and raised constitutional defenses; she was convicted and appealed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court focused not on the statute’s meaning but on how the Ninth Circuit handled the appeal. The Court said appellate panels must generally decide the issues the parties present. The Ninth Circuit invited outside groups to brief and argue a new “overbreadth” First Amendment question the defendant had not raised, then invalidated the statute on that ground. The Supreme Court held that the panel’s takeover was an abuse of discretion, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration limited to the issues shaped by the parties.

Real world impact

The ruling does not decide whether the law is constitutional. Instead, it returns the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the defenses Sineneng-Smith actually raised. The federal statute remains in place for now, and the appeals court must proceed without relying on the uninvited overbreadth theory.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas concurred, agreeing with the outcome but urging reconsideration of the overbreadth doctrine itself, which he described as legally and historically doubtful.