|
|
|
|
Welcome to the April 15 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the most up-to-date political information.
|
Arguments
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in six cases this week. The court has heard 59 cases so far this term. As of publication, it has agreed to hear 75 cases.
In its October 2017 term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 69 cases. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' current October 2018 term.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS will hear this week:
April 15
- Iancu v. Brunetti concerns the First Amendment and the registration of vulgar trademarks. Erik Brunetti tried to register his clothing brand's trademark "FUCT," but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the application. Brunetti appealed the decision and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that preventing him from trademarking "FUCT" violated his First Amendment rights.
Title 15 of the United States Code Section 1052(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) says a trademark application shall be refused if it "comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter."
The issue: Whether Section 1052(a)'s prohibition on the federal registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" marks is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
- Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian concerns Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In May 2015, Emulex Corp. merged with Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing, Inc. Avago agreed to pay $8.00 per share for outstanding Emulex stock. Goldman Sachs concluded the offer was fair but believed $8.00 per share was below average compared to similar mergers.
After the merger, some Emulex shareholders brought a class-action lawsuit against Emulex and Avago, alleging the companies violated Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act. The district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed part of the district court's ruling.
The issue: Whether the 9th Circuit correctly held, in express disagreement with five other courts of appeals, that Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on a negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer.
April 16
- In Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, Brian Newton worked for Parker Drilling Management Services ("Parker") on a drilling platform fixed on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). He worked 14-day shifts and regularly worked for 12 hours each day. Newton alleges he ate for 15 to 30 minutes during his shifts without clocking out and that Parker did not provide 30-minute meal periods for every five hours worked. After Parker terminated his employment, Newton sued in a state court for wage and hour violations under California law. Parker removed the case to U.S. District Court, which dismissed Newton's claims. Newton appealed to the 9th Circuit, which vacated the district court's findings, holding that the district court erred in dismissing the claims.
The issue: Whether the 5th Circuit's or 9th Circuit's interpretation of the application of state law to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act is correct.
- North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust concerns taxing trusts and state residency.
In 1992, Joseph Lee Rice III established a trust in New York for the benefit of his descendants. In 2002, the trust was divided into three sub-trusts, including the Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust ("the Trust"), which benefited Rice's daughter Kimberley Rice Kaestner, then a North Carolina resident.
In 2009, Trust representatives filed a claim for a refund of taxes paid to the North Carolina Department of Revenue between 2005 and 2008. The department denied the request. The representatives then sued in state court. The state court ruled the state statute enabling the department of revenue to collect taxes from the trust was unconstitutional. The state appellate and supreme courts upheld the lower state court's decision.
According to Oyez, the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires 'minimum contacts' connecting a state and the property it seeks to tax."
The issue: Whether the due process clause prohibits states from taxing trusts based on trust beneficiaries’ in-state residency.
April 17
- In United States v. Davis, a jury found defendants Maurice Lamont Davis and Andre Levon Glover guilty of illegally carrying a firearm while committing a crime of violence and of illegally using or carrying a firearm to aid and abet conspiracy to commit a crime of violence. The defendants challenged their sentences, which the 5th Circuit denied.
After the defendants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, SCOTUS remanded the case to the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit vacated its decision about the count to aid and abet conspiracy, holding it rests on a clause with a "crime of violence" definition that could be considered unconstitutionally vague. The government appealed the vacating of that decision to SCOTUS.
A section of U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) has both an “elements clause” and a “residual clause" which define offenses as crimes of violence differently.
- The elements clause: An offense is a crime of violence if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.”
- The residual clause: An offense is a crime of violence if it, “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”
The issue: Whether the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B), which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using, or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime, is unconstitutionally vague.
- McDonough v. Smith concerns 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the statute of limitations for fabrication-of-evidence claims.
Edward McDonough, an election official in New York, was indicted on 74 felony counts of ballot forgery. Special district attorney Youel Smith prosecuted McDonough. A first trial ended in a mistrial. McDonough was acquitted in a second trial in 2012. McDonough filed a lawsuit in 2015 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Smith fabricated evidence and used it against him in the previous trials. The Northern District of New York ruled McDonough filed the lawsuit too late because the statute of limitations had run out. The 2nd Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, disagreeing with past decisions the 3rd Circuit, 9th Circuit, and 10th Circuit made in other cases.
The issue: Whether the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim based on fabrication of evidence in criminal proceedings begins to run when those proceedings terminate in the defendant's favor (as the majority of circuits has held) or whether it begins to run when the defendant becomes aware of the tainted evidence and its improper use (as the Second Circuit held).
Opinions
SCOTUS has ruled on two cases since our April 1 issue. The court has issued rulings in 27 cases so far this term.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since April 1:
April 1
- Bucklew v. Precythe was argued before the court on November 6, 2018.
Russell Bucklew was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape. A jury sentenced him to death. He filed an action claiming his rare medical condition would cause his death by lethal injection to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Bucklew asked to be executed by nitrogen hypoxia. He also questioned whether two members of Missouri’s lethal injection team were qualified to carry out his execution. The district court ruled against all of Bucklew's claims, and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s findings.
The outcome: In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed the ruling of the 8th Circuit, holding Bucklew did not meet criteria under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings requiring a death row inmate to show (1) that a feasible and readily implemented alternative method existed and (2) that the state refused to use the method without a good reason.
Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
- Biestek v. Berryhill was argued before the court on Dec. 4, 2018.
Michael Biestek stopped working in 2005 due to degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. The Social Security Administration denied his application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in 2010. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Biestek was disabled after May 4, 2013, not before. Biestek appealed, arguing the judge should have complied with his request to require the vocational expert to provide the data that suggested there was other work available to Biestek. The 6th Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling the ALJ had not erred in not requiring the vocational expert to produce the data.
The outcome: In a 6-3 decision, the court held that a refusal to include data supporting the testimony of expert witnesses in the official record of adjudication proceedings does not preclude the testimony from counting as "substantial evidence."
Justice Sotomayor dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg.
Upcoming SCOTUS dates
Here are the upcoming dates of interest in April:
- April 15:
- SCOTUS will release orders
- SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases
- April 16: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases
- April 17: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases
- April 18: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.
- April 22: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases
|
How many authorized judgeships does the U.S. Court of International Trade have?
- 5
- 9
- 17
- 77
Choose an answer to find out!
|
Confirmations
The Senate has confirmed five nominees since our April 1 issue.
The Senate has confirmed 97 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—58 district court judges, 37 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices—since January 2017.
Changes to Senate rules
The five U.S. District Court nominees noted above were the first confirmed under new rules the Senate adopted on April 3. The Senate voted 51-48 to reduce post-cloture debate on U.S. District Court nominees from 30 hours to two hours (circuit court judges and Supreme Court justices still have 30-hour limits). The Senate made the same change for executive branch nominees below the Cabinet level.
The two-hour period begins after the Senate votes to invoke cloture when senators agree to end debate and bring a nomination or legislative act to a final vote. Cloture is often invoked to end filibusters. It takes 51 votes to invoke cloture on a presidential nominee and 60 votes to invoke cloture on legislation.
The change was approved using the nuclear option, which requires 51 votes rather than 60, to alter Senate precedent.
It was the third use of the nuclear option in Senate history. In 2013, it was used to eliminate the 60-vote threshold to confirm presidential nominees, except those to the Supreme Court. In 2017, it was used to eliminate the 60-vote threshold required to confirm Supreme Court nominees.
For more, see Filibuster and reconciliation in the United States Congress.
Nominations
President Trump has announced two new Article III nominees since our April 1 edition.
At the sine die adjournment of the 115th Congress on Jan. 3, 2019, 71 judicial nominees were returned to President Trump. The president renominated 12 of those individuals since our April 1 edition. In total, he has re-nominated 68 of the 71 returned nominees.
President Barack Obama (D) nominated four of the 12—Brown, Gallagher, Gujarati, and McElroy—for the same federal judgeships listed below during the 114th Congress. The Senate did not vote on their nominations during that session.
The president has announced 179 Article III judicial nominations since taking office on January 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.
Vacancies
The federal judiciary currently has 152 vacancies. As of publication, there were 68 pending nominations.
According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, an additional 14 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term.
For more information on judicial vacancies during Trump's first term, click here.
Committee action
The Senate Judiciary Committee reported five new nominees out of committee since our April 1 edition.
- Daniel Collins, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
- Kenneth Kiyul Lee, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
- James Hendrix, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
- Sean Jordan, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- Mark Pittman, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Do you love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? We figured you might. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count, published on the last Wednesday of each month, monitors all the faces and places moving in, moving out, and moving on in the federal judiciary.
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.
|
In each issue of Bold Justice, we highlight a federal court you should know more about. Right now, we’re taking a closer look at the 94 U.S. District Courts. The district courts are the general trial courts of the U.S. federal court system.
There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
In this edition, we're checking in on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District of Massachusetts has original jurisdiction over cases filed in the state. The court is headquartered in Boston, with courthouses in Springfield and Worcester.
Decisions of the court may be appealed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
The District of Massachusetts has 13 authorized judgeships. There are currently two vacancies. The breakdown of current active judges by appointing president is:
- Barack Obama (D): Six judges
- Bill Clinton (D): Two judges
- George W. Bush (R): One judge
- George H.W. Bush (R): One judge
- Ronald Reagan (R): One judge
|
We'll be back April 22 with a new edition of Bold Justice.
|
|
|
