Did the Fourth Circuit violate the party-presentation principle by deciding a case on a question broader than the one advanced by the parties? Specifically, did the court err by remanding for factfinding into whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was "functioning as Congress intended" when the parties only argued whether specific claims were covered by the Act? Whether this departure from the rule that points not argued will not be considered constitutes an abuse of discretion.

• The Fourth Circuit violated the party-presentation principle by deciding the case on a novel ground that neither party had raised.
• The court failed to provide either side an opportunity to address the theory that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) might not be functioning as intended.
• The court's decision to act *sua sponte* on a broad issue constituted a "drastic" departure from the adversarial system and an abuse of discretion.

• The specific First and Fifth Amendment claims of its members were not the kind of work-related claims that Congress intended to steer out of district court under the CSRA.
• While the CSRA generally channels judicial review of covered employment actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), these specific claims fell outside that scheme.
• Respondent sought to have its constitutional challenges heard in federal district court rather than through the administrative review process.

• The Court held that the Fourth Circuit violated the party-presentation principle, which is the "rule that points not argued will not be considered."
• Relying on *United States v. Burke*, the Court explained that this principle distinguishes the United States' adversarial system of justice from an inquisitorial one.
• The Court noted that federal courts are "essentially passive instruments of government" and must rely on the parties to "frame the issues for decision," citing *United States v. Sineneng-Smith*.
• The Court found that the parties had confined their arguments to the narrow question of whether the respondent's 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 erred by *sua sponte* transforming the argument into a broader question of whether the CSRA "might not—in light of current conditions—channel any claims."
• Citing *Clark v. Sweeney*, the Court concluded that granting relief based on a claim that a party "never asserted and that the State never had the chance to address" is a "drastic" departure from the party-presentation principle.
• The Court determined that this departure "constituted an abuse of discretion," quoting *United States v. Sineneng-Smith*.
• 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. Sineneng-Smith*.