Did the Fourth Circuit violate the party presentation principle by vacating and remanding a case based on an issue not raised by the parties? Specifically, did the court err by *sua sponte* questioning whether the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) was functioning as Congress intended due to administrative failures at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)? The core issue is whether a court may decide a case on a novel ground without party input or supplemental briefing.

Petitioner sought the reinstatement of the District Court's dismissal of the challenge to the speech policy. Petitioner argued that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 92 Stat. 1122, 1125, 5 U. S. C. §§1205, 1206, precludes district-court jurisdiction over covered employment actions. Petitioner contended that the Fourth Circuit erred by deciding the case on a basis not presented by either party.

Respondent sought to challenge the Executive Office for Immigration Review's speech policy in federal district court on First and Fifth Amendment grounds. Respondent argued that its members' constitutional claims were not the kind of work-related claims that Congress intended to steer out of district court via the CSRA. Respondent did not dispute that the CSRA generally provides the exclusive avenue for review of certain employment-related claims.

The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's judgment. The Court relied on the "principle of party presentation," which is the "rule that points not argued will not be considered." This principle distinguishes the U.S. adversarial system from an inquisitorial one, as established in *United States v. Burke*. Citing *United States v. Sineneng-Smith*, the Court noted that courts are "essentially passive instruments of government" and must decide "only the questions presented." The Court applied the reasoning from *Clark v. Sweeney*, where the Fourth Circuit was reversed for granting relief based on a claim the prisoner never asserted. Here, the parties limited their arguments to whether the specific claims were "covered" by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 92 Stat. 1122, 1125, 5 U. S. C. §§1205, 1206. The Fourth Circuit instead *sua sponte* questioned whether the CSRA was "functioning as Congress intended" due to MSPB quorum issues. The Court found this to be a "drastic" departure from party presentation principles and an "abuse of discretion." The Court emphasized that federal courts are not "roving commissions" licensed to "sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right," citing *Broadrick v. Oklahoma* and *United States v. Samuels*. Consequently, the Court held that the Fourth Circuit decided a case different from the one advanced by the parties.

not stated.