Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

Cite as:  564 U. S. ____ (2011) 

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

question  raised  exclusively  in  the  Federal  Government’s 
amicus brief.  In some cases, the Court properly affirms a 
lower court’s judgment on an alternative ground or accepts 
the persuasive argument of an amicus on a question that 
the  parties  have  raised.  See,  e.g.,  United  States  v. 
Tinklenberg, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 13).  But 
it  transforms  a  case  entirely  to  vacate  a  state  court’s 
judgment  based  on  an  alternative  constitutional  ground
advanced  only  by  an  amicus  and  outside  the  question  on
which  the  petitioner  sought  (and  this  Court  granted) 
review. 

It should come as no surprise that the majority confines
its  analysis  of  the  Federal  Government’s  new  issue  to  ac- 
knowledging  the  Government’s  “considerable  experience” 
in  the  field  of  child  support  enforcement  and  then  adopt-
ing  the  Government’s  suggestions  in  toto.  See  ante, 
at  14–15.  Perhaps  if  the  issue  had  been  preserved  and 
briefed by the parties, the majority would have had alter-
native solutions or procedures to consider.  See Tr. of Oral 
Arg.  43  (“[T]here’s  been  no  development.    We  don’t  know 
what  other  States  are  doing,  the  range  of  options  out 
there”).  The  Federal  Government’s  interest  in  States’ 
child  support  enforcement  efforts  may  give  the  Govern-
ment a valuable perspective,4 but it does not overcome the 
strong reasons behind the Court’s practice of not consider-
ing  new  issues,  raised  and  addressed  only  by  an  amicus, 
for the first time in this Court. 

III 

For  the  reasons  explained  in  the  previous  two  sections, 
I  would  not  engage  in  the  majority’s  balancing  analysis. 
But  there  is  yet  another  reason  not  to  undertake  the 

—————— 

4 See, e.g., Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, 112 Stat. 618; 
Child  Support  Recovery  Act  of  1992,  106  Stat.  3403;  Child  Support
Enforcement  Amendments  of  1984,  98  Stat.  1305;  Social  Services 
Amendments of 1974, 88 Stat. 2337.