“Neither Party Is Right, But the Ninth Circuit Is Wrong”

Ilya Shapiro andMichael CollinsThe Supreme Court yesterday released a unanimous opinion inUnited States v. Sineneng ‐​Smith. If you go by the briefs and arguments, the case concerned a First Amendment challenge to a criminal ban on the solicitation or encouragement of illegal immigration. Catofiled a brief arguing that the statute was unconstitutional. The Court, however, did not reference our argument, or that of either party for that matter. Instead, the Court vacated the lower court ’s ruling, which found the statute unconstitutional, based on the “party presentation” rule.The party presentation rule requires that courts only decide issues squarely presented by the parties, here Evelyn Sineneng ‐​Smith and the United States. While Ms. Sineneng‐​Smith argued at trial and on appeal that her conviction violated the First Amendment, she did not specifically make an “overbreadth” challenge — that even if the statute covers her behavior, it goes too far and could punish protected speech, like a lawyer advising a client or even think tank scholar advocating for policy reform.After hearing her case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit raised the overbreadth issue by itself, asking several immigrant ‐​rights groups to brief and argue it as amici curiae. Then the court accepted that argument, as did Ms. Sineneng ‐​Smith when the Supreme Court took the case. The government in ...

Source: Cato-at-liberty - May 8, 2020 Category: American Health Authors: Ilya Shapiro, Michael Collins Source Type: blogs