United States v. Sineneng-Smith

Summary

Justice Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion by radically departing from the principle of party presentation. Rather than deciding Sineneng-Smith’s statutory and as-applied constitutional arguments, the appellate panel recruited amici to develop a facial overbreadth challenge and relegated the parties to a secondary role. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded for reconsideration of the appeal as shaped by the parties, without deciding the statute’s constitutionality. Justice Thomas concurred separately, without any other Justice joining, to urge reconsideration of First Amendment overbreadth doctrine because he viewed it as unsupported by constitutional text and history, inconsistent with ordinary facial-challenge standards, and contrary to traditional standing principles.