This morning, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision of interest to mostly attorneys. Margolin v. Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, No. 25-2067 (5-26-26). I bring it up because this has happened to most of us at one time or another and is extremely frustrating to explain to a client how we get ambushed by a court on issues never raised by our opponent. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit (for the second time in a year) for reversing a judgment on grounds not raised or briefed by any of the parties in the case and not giving the parties an opportunity to file supplemental briefs on the issue. “Federal courts adhere to the principle of party presentation. . . . That principle—the ‘rule that points not argued will not be considered’—distinguishes our adversarial system of justice from an inquisitorial one. . . . Because courts are ‘essentially passive instruments of government,’ we rely on the parties to ‘frame the issues for decision’ and decide ‘only the questions presented.’” In other words, “[f]ederal courts are not ‘roving commissions,’ . . . licensed to ‘sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. . . ’”
The Fourth Circuit violated the
party presentation principle when it decided “a case different from the one
[respondent] advanced.” . . . As respondent conceded below, our precedent
establishes that Congress, through the CSRA, intended to channel covered claims
to the MSPB. . . . . The parties thus
confined their arguments to the narrow question whether respondent’s claims
were, in fact, covered. Unsatisfied with rejecting respondent’s arguments on
that question, however, the Fourth Circuit sua sponte addressed a much broader
one and remanded for further proceedings on that question. The court transformed
respondent’s argument that the CSRA did not channel its claims into one that
the CSRA might not—in light of current conditions—channel any claims. And
the court did so without giving either side a chance to address its theory.
. . . That “‘drasti[c]’” departure from the
principle of party presentation “‘constitute[d] an abuse of discretion.’” . . .
Federal courts are not “roving commissions,” . . . licensed to “‘sally forth each day
looking for wrongs to right,’” . . .
(bolding added for emphasis).
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert
you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
