Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Bold Justice: April 1, 2019

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

%%subject%%

Alexander Hamilton may have thought them the least dangerous branch, but we at Ballotpedia think federal courts are the most exciting!

Forward This blank Tweet This blank Send to Linkedin blank Send to Facebook blank
blank
Ballotpedia's Bold Justice

Welcome to the April 1 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about public sector union policy news. April fools! Bold Justice is about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Subscribe to Union Station for Ballotpedia's actual newsletter about public sector union policy news. Otherwise, follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the most up-to-date political information.


Arguments 

The Supreme Court will be back to hear arguments the week of April 15. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' current October 2018 term.

Opinions

SCOTUS has ruled on three cases since our March 25 issue. The court has issued rulings in 25 cases so far this term.

Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since March 25:

March 26

  • Sturgeon v. Frost was argued before the court on Nov. 5, 2018.

    In 2007, National Park Service rangers told John Sturgeon he could not operate his hovercraft on the Nation River because it was within the boundaries of Alaska’s Yukon-Charley National Preserve conservation unit. The National Park System prohibits hovercraft. Sturgeon then sued the park service, alleging the State of Alaska owned the river and the Park Service could not enforce its hovercraft ban.

    On remand, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the waters of the Nation River were public lands under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) and the parks service could regulate hovercraft use on the river. 

    The outcome: In a unanimous decision, the court reversed and remanded the 9th Circuit ruling, holding that (1) Alaska's Nation River is not public land and (2) under ANILCA, non-public lands in Alaska and navigable waters in Alaska's national parks are exempt from the National Park Service's regulatory authority. 
  • Republic of Sudan v. Harrison was argued before the court on Nov. 7, 2018.

    In 2000, the USS Cole was bombed while it was in port in Aden, Yemen. The families of the injured service members filed a lawsuit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against the government of Sudan for its alleged involvement in the attack. Under the law, plaintiffs can have a clerk of the U.S. court serve the head of the ministry of foreign affairs, which the plaintiffs in this case did. However, they did so at the Sudanese embassy in Washington, rather than at the foreign ministry in Sudan. The Sudanese government argued the plaintiffs had to file their complaint in Sudan. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiffs met the requirements of the law. 

    The outcome: In an 8-1 decision, the court reversed and remanded the 2nd Circuit's ruling, holding that §1608(a)(3) of the FSIA requires plaintiffs suing a foreign state to send a mailing directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state.

    Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

March 27

  • Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission was argued before the court on Dec. 3, 2018.

    Francis Lorenzo, the director of investment banking at Charles Vista, LLC, sent emails containing false statements to potential investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Lorenzo with violating three securities-fraud laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed Lorenzo had violated two of the laws. However, it reversed the SEC in regards to the third provision, finding Lorenzo's boss had ultimate authority over the statements and therefore Lorenzo did not truly make the statements.

    The outcome: In a 6-2 decision, the court affirmed the ruling of the D.C. Circuit, holding that an individual can be liable for disseminating false statements with intent to defraud under SEC rules 10b-5(a) and (c), even if he or she cannot be held liable as the "maker" of the statements under Rule 10b-5(b).

    Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a dissenting opinion, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case. He recused himself because he considered the case while he was a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Upcoming SCOTUS dates

Here are the upcoming dates of interest in April:

  • April 1: SCOTUS will release orders.
    • When SCOTUS releases orders, they grant or deny review on the merits in a case. They can also issue other orders, such as granting or denying a request to participate in oral argument, according to SCOTUSblog.
  • April 12: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.
  • April 15:
    • SCOTUS will release orders
    • SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases


What was the vacancy percentage—the number of vacant seats out of the total number of seats—for U.S. District Courts just over five years ago, on March 26, 2014?

  1. 10.5 percent
  2. 16.2 percent
  3. 19.7 percent
  4. 25.0 percent

Choose an answer to find out!

The Federal Vacancy Count tracks vacancies, nominations, and confirmations to all United States Article III federal courts in a one-month period. Ballotpedia publishes the Federal Vacancy Count on the last Wednesday of the month. The April 29 issue of Bold Justice will include the next Federal Vacancy Count.

This month's edition includes nominations, confirmations, and vacancies from Feb. 28 to March 27, 2019.

Highlights

  • Vacancies: There were five new judicial vacancies since the February 2019 report. As of March 27, 141 of 870 active Article III judicial positions on courts covered in this report were vacant —a vacancy percentage of 16.2 percent.

    Including the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States territorial courts, 152 of 890 active federal judicial positions are vacant.
     
  • Nominations: There have been nine new nominations since the February 2019 report.
     
  • Confirmations: There have been six new confirmations since the February 2019 report.

Vacancy count for March 27, 2019

A breakdown of the vacancies at each level can be found in the table below. For a more detailed look at the vacancies on the federal courts, click here.

*Though the United States territorial courts are named as district courts, they are not Article III courts. They are created in accordance with the power granted under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Click here for more information.

New vacancies

The following judges left their active statuses, creating Article III vacancies. As Article III judicial positions, these vacancies must be filled by a nomination from the president. Nominations are subject to Senate confirmation.

Senior status is a classification for federal judges who are semi-retired. Senior judges continue to serve on federal courts while hearing a reduced number of cases, typically around 15 percent of the federal courts' annual workload. Click here for more information.

For more information on judicial vacancies during President Trump's first term, click here. 



New nominations

President Trump announced nine new nominations since the February 2019 report.

  • Robert J. Colville, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
     
  • Stephanie Haines, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
     
  • Jason Pulliam, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
     
  • Michael Bogren, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
     
  • Jeff Brown, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
     
  • Stephanie Dawkins Davis, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
     
  • Brantley Starr, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
     
  • Ada Brown, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
     
  • David J. Novak, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The president has announced 177 Article III judicial nominations since taking office Jan. 20, 2017. The president named 69 judicial nominees in 2017 and 92 in 2018. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here.

New confirmations

Between Feb. 28 and March 27, 2019, the Senate confirmed six of the president’s nominees to Article III courts. Since January 2017, the Senate has confirmed 92 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—53 district court judges, 37 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices.

Need a daily fix of judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? Click here for continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees.

Or, if you prefer, we also maintain a list of individuals President Trump has nominated.
Looking ahead

We'll be back April 15 with a new edition of Bold Justice.


Why subscribe to Bold Justice?

Stay on top of the whirlwind world of the federal judiciary


Need to stay on top of the whirlwind world of the federal judiciary of the United States?

Join us, counsel, as we lay the foundation for what happened this week in the world of federal courts. Our record will reflect the cases SCOTUS heard, which judges retired, which were nominated, and what important rulings come out of other federal courts. Call us as your next witness and get the most in-depth coverage of federal courts available to your inbox. Subscribe for free today.

Ballotpedia has been providing new areas of coverage, performing in-depth analyses, and developing new tools to help keep our readers in the know since 2006. This is one more resource to keep you informed—one that can be delivered to your inbox once a week.







Archive

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017


Why Bold Justice?

Well, there’s a story behind it, and we’re happy to credit Justice Samuel Alito for the inspiration. Back in October of 2014, Justice Alito joined his fellow Supreme Court Yale Law alumni, Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, for a panel as part of the law school’s alumni weekend (video below). During the discussion, the moderator asked the audience if they could guess which of the three justices on the panel served as the inspiration for a coffee house to name one of their blends of coffee, Bold Justice. Justice Alito responded, “Obviously, it’s me.”

He went on to tell the story of how, during his days as a Third Circuit judge, his law clerks participated in a Newark, New Jersey, coffee shop’s year-long promotion wherein if customers sampled every blend for one year, the customers could then create and name a blend of coffee. Justice Alito described Bold Justice as a blend that was “designed for about three o’clock in the afternoon if you’re working and you’re starting to fall asleep, if you have this, it will jolt you awake.” A blend of courts and coffee: sounds perfect to us!

v • e
Ballotpedia-Logo-UPDATED-white background.jpg
Ballotpedia coverage by project
Federal
State
Local
Policy
News
Indexes


Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Bold_Justice:_April_1,_2019&oldid=8439494"