Jaron McCree, Petitioner v. United States

Jaron McCree is asking the Supreme Court to review whether the Fifth Circuit could affirm a judgment based on a hypothetical factual finding that the government said the record did not support and did not argue on appeal. He also says the appeals court made its own factual determination after the government gave up that argument in district court and the district court declined to rely on it.

The case is still at the petition stage. McCree argues the Fifth Circuit supplied its own factual basis for affirming, and no oral argument is scheduled yet.

The case could affect whether appellate courts must stick to the arguments and facts the sides actually put forward. For example, a person challenging a federal judgment could lose because of a factual theory raised for the first time by judges, not by the government.

McCree says the Fifth Circuit upheld the judgment using a factual theory the government did not press and said lacked record support. He says that broke the rule that courts usually decide the case the parties actually present.

People appealing federal judgments could be affected if an appeals court relies on a new factual theory they never had a chance to answer. The government could also be affected because clear limits on appellate review would shape how its lawyers defend judgments.

The justices first must decide whether to grant certiorari (take the case). If they do, the Court would later schedule briefing and oral argument.