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.

Over the years, it has been amended several times, including in 1986 when a provision was added to make a crime the act of encouraging unauthorized immigration.

[6] Nevertheless, Sineneng-Smith persisted in signing up additional clients and accepting retainees fees even after learning that the labor certification process no longer existed.

However, Judge Whyte directed a verdict of acquittal on two counts (one each of encouraging illegal immigration and mail fraud) due to insufficient evidence.

A three-judge panel comprising Judges A. Wallace Tashima, Marsha Berzon, and Andrew Hurwitz heard oral arguments on her appeal in April 2017.

The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the Circuit Court had committed an abuse of discretion by overstepping its bounds by "drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion", instead of "adjudicating the case presented", as established in Greenlaw v. United States (554 U.S. 237 (2008)).