Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 28

8 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

that  Turner  challenges  in  this  case  is  the  failure  of  the 
family court to appoint counsel”); Brief for Respondents 62 
(declining to address the Government’s argument because 
it  is  not  “properly  before  this  Court”  (capitalization  and
boldface type deleted).  Finally, as here, a party may even
oppose  the  position  taken  by  its  allegedly  supportive 
amicus.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 7–12, 14–15 (Turner’s coun-
sel  rejecting  the  Government’s  argument  that  any  proce-
dures  short  of  a  categorical  right  to  appointed  counsel 
could  satisfy  due  process);  Reply  Brief  for  Petitioner  14–
15. 

Accordingly, it is the wise and settled general practice of
this  Court  not  to  consider  an  issue  in  the  first  instance, 
much less one raised only by an amicus.  See this Court’s 
Rule 14.1(a) (“Only the questions set out in the petition, or 
fairly  included  therein,  will  be  considered  by  the  Court”); 
Adarand  Constructors,  Inc.  v.  Mineta,  534  U. S.  103,  110 
(2001)  (per  curiam)  (“[T]his  is  a  court  of  final  review  and 
not first view” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United 
Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U. S. 56, 60, n. 2 (1981) 
(declining  to  consider  an  amicus’  argument  “since  it  was
not raised by either of the parties here or below” and was 
outside the grant of certiorari).  This is doubly true when
we review the decision of a state court and triply so when
the new issue is a constitutional matter.  See McGoldrick 
v.  Compagnie  Generale  Transatlantique,  309  U. S.  430, 
434 (1940) (“[I]t is only in exceptional cases, and then only 
in  cases  coming  from  the  federal  courts,  that  [this  Court]
considers questions urged by a petitioner or appellant not 
pressed or passed upon in the courts below”); Cardinale v. 
Louisiana, 394 U. S. 437, 438 (1969) (“[T]he Court will not 
decide federal constitutional issues raised here for the first 
time on review of state court decisions”).

The  majority  errs  in  moving  beyond  the  question  that
was litigated below, decided by the state courts, petitioned
to this Court, and argued by the parties here, to resolve a