Justices Ginsburg and Thomas Bash 9th Circuit for 'Abuse of Discretion' in Immigration Consultant Ca

[Calista241]

Source: Law & Crime

Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas each penned opinions on Thursday in United States v. Sineneng-Smith bashing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for an “abuse of discretion.”

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Ninth Circuit “panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation” in the case of immigration consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith “constituted an abuse of discretion.” Ginsburg penned the opinion for the court; Thomas filed a concurring opinion that took things a step further.

...

The Court called the Ninth Circuit‘s hijacking of the case a “radical transformation” that went “well beyond the pale.”

Sineneng-Smith is a U.S. citizen who worked as an immigration consultant in San Jose, California for almost 20 years; in her practice, she helped non-citizens navigate the American immigration system. Sineneng-Smith was charged in 2010 in connection with helping three undocumented workers and their employers complete applications for employment-based lawful permanent residence. Among the charges were three felony counts under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), for Sineneng-Smith’s use of “dangerous words,” and for “words and … deeds” aimed at “encourag[ing] or induc[ing] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States.” The § 1324 charges were the focus of the ensuing appeal, not the tax fraud charges Sineneng-Smith pleaded guilty to committing nor the mail fraud counts. Even though there was already sufficient evidence to support the fraud conviction, the government chose to bring criminal charges based on immigration advocacy generally.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justices-ginsburg-and-thomas-bash-9th-circuit-for-abuse-of-discretion-in-immigration-consultant-case/

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Is something happening at the Court?

It's almost like CJ Roberts has told Justices the polarized politics has got to do, to get talking to one another. I know some of these cases don't fit neatly into political left-right paradigm but the softening of lines is almost like opening a window.

[lagomorph777]

2. It's hard to imagine "Thomas" and "Ginsburg" in the same sentence without "vs" in between.

Definitely surprising.

[sl8]

7. So far, they've agreed in 59% of cases this year

https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/
(scroll down to "Voting Relationships&quot

Note that this figure includes agreement in full, in part or in judgment.

[elleng]

3. They always talk to one-another,

it's a necessary part of their job. We're foolish if we think of the justices work lives as wrapped up in politics as ours are.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. Probably right

but I am hoping someone posts a list of Justice Alito's and Thomas's liberal leaning decisions. I wanna believe in, you know, balls and strikes.

[FBaggins]

9. Not as unusual as you might think

Roughly half of SCOTUS rulings are unanimous.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Supreme Court Revives Case Raising Fears of Jailed Grandmas (2)

Kimberly Robinson Retweeted

#SCOTUS smacks down Ninth Circuit, sidestepping First Amendment issues.

Link to tweet

Supreme Court Revives Case Raising Fears of Jailed Grandmas (2)
May 7, 2020, 10:22 AM; Updated: May 7, 2020, 1:42 PM

--- Justices chastise Ninth Circuit handling of criminal appeal

--- Appeals court went “beyond the pale,” high court says

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, for now, in a case that raises free speech concerns and fears of jailing preachers, lawyers, and even doting grandparents. ... Sidestepping those issues, Thursday’s unanimous ruling focused on what the justices saw as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overstepping its bounds in handling the case, and sent it back there for further review.

In striking down a law used to punish encouraging illegal immigration, the appeals court wrongly inserted itself into the dispute instead of focusing on the arguments raised by the parties, the high court said in the opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. ... The Ninth Circuit’s “radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale,” Ginsburg wrote.

Immigration cases have dominated the high court’s docket this term. The federal prosecution of consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith for allegedly dispensing illegal advice raised concerns by a wide range of supporters including groups advocating for lawyers, human rights workers, and religious organizations about the scope of the underlying statute.

Sineneng-Smith’s clients were mostly natives of the Philippines illegally employed in the home healthcare industry. She helped them apply for labor certifications that she said would help them get green cards. But she knew they weren’t eligible for the certification program, effectively causing them to stay in the U.S. illegally.

She was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The statutory maximum for encouragement is generally five years in prison. Defendants can receive five more years if the government proves they did so for financial gain, as it did in this case. ... Sineneng-Smith argued at the trial and on appeal that her prosecution violated the First Amendment’s petition and free speech clauses, Ginsburg recounted.

{snip}

[elleng]

5. "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 frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present,'” the Supreme Court’s holding said. “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 [8 U.S.C.] §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.”

The Court called the Ninth Circuit‘s hijacking of the case a “radical transformation” that went “well beyond the pale.”'

[OneCrazyDiamond]

6. I don't understand, but Justice Ginsburg does. n/t