the government’s petition for his commitment.”). But, as the majority recognizes, the district court stopped short of making a constitutional ruling. Instead, without finding any ambiguity in the language of the statute, the district court sought to remedy a constitutional problem through an unsupportable reading of the statutory scheme. That error compels us to vacate the district court’s order and remand. Additionally, as pointed out by the majority, while the constitutional due process concerns may persist, they were not identified by Respondents, who failed to raise an as-applied due process challenge to the statute. This itself counsels us to avoid passing on the issue in the first instance. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (<HOLDING>). I recognize that “there are circumstances in
recognizing the general rule that a court of appeals will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered by this court holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that as a general rule this court will not consider an issue that was not raised below holding that generally appellate courts will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal