| dbo:abstract |
United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case of the United States Supreme Court, in which the justices considered the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration. The case attracted attention from civil liberties groups and immigration advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Lawyers Guild. The case at lower courts had dealt with potential fraud committed by consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith in preparing paperwork for green card certification that she knew would never be approved. While Sineneng-Smith had argued that the basis of the specific clause of the Immigration and National Act violated her First Amendment rights at lower courts, when the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges introduced the idea that the statute of convictions of that clause was overly broad under her First Amendment rights, an issue not brought by either party. The Ninth Circuit subsequently struck down the law as unconstitutional and overturned Sineneng-Smith's conviction. At the Supreme Court, the unanimous decision in May 2020 vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision for violating the principle of party presentation established under Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit "for reconsideration shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties." (en) |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink |
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/19-67/ https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-67 https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/11/united-states-v-sineneng-smith/ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm%3Fabstract_id=3862443 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=2581657057810612386 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20181204149 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-67_n6io.pdf |
| dbo:wikiPageID |
63199017 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength |
12797 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID |
1032328566 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink |
dbc:United_States_immigration_and_naturalization_case_law dbr:Ronald_Whyte dbr:San_Jose,_California dbr:National_Lawyers_Guild dbc:2020_in_United_States_case_law dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California dbr:United_States_Supreme_Court dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:9th_Cir. dbr:A._Wallace_Tashima dbr:American_Civil_Liberties_Union dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Green_card dbr:Greenlaw_v._United_States dbr:Marsha_Berzon dbc:United_States_First_Amendment_case_law dbr:First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 dbr:Certiorari dbr:Writ_of_certiorari dbr:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States dbr:Andrew_Hurwitz dbr:N.D._Cal. dbr:F.3d |
| dbp:arguedate |
0001-02-25 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:argueyear |
2020 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:case |
United States v. Sineneng-Smith, (en) |
| dbp:concurrence |
Thomas (en) |
| dbp:decidedate |
0001-05-07 (xsd:gMonthDay) |
| dbp:decideyear |
2020 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:docket |
19 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:fullname |
United States v. Evelyn Sineneng-Smith (en) |
| dbp:googlescholar |
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=2581657057810612386 |
| dbp:holding |
A federal appeals court abuses its discretion when it goes beyond the questions and issues presented by a party. (en) |
| dbp:joinmajority |
unanimous (en) |
| dbp:justia |
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/19-67/ |
| dbp:lawsapplied |
dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 |
| dbp:litigants |
United States v. Sineneng-Smith (en) |
| dbp:majority |
Ginsburg (en) |
| dbp:otherSource |
Supreme Court (en) |
| dbp:otherUrl |
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-67_n6io.pdf |
| dbp:oyez |
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-67 |
| dbp:parallelcitations |
140 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:prior |
25920.0 (dbd:second) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate |
dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist dbt:Ussc |
| dct:subject |
dbc:United_States_immigration_and_naturalization_case_law dbc:2020_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:United_States_First_Amendment_case_law |
| rdf:type |
owl:Thing dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase |
| rdfs:comment |
United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case of the United States Supreme Court, in which the justices considered the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration. The case attracted attention from civil liberties groups and immigration advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Lawyers Guild. (en) |
| rdfs:label |
United States v. Sineneng-Smith (en) |
| owl:sameAs |
wikidata:United States v. Sineneng-Smith https://global.dbpedia.org/id/BxxMb |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom |
wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Sineneng-Smith?oldid=1032328566&ns=0 |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf |
wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Sineneng-Smith |
| foaf:name |
(en) United States v. Evelyn Sineneng-Smith (en) |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of |
dbr:United_States_v_Sineneng-Smith |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of |
dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_immigration_case_law dbr:United_States_v_Sineneng-Smith |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of |
wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Sineneng-Smith |
