|
|
|
|
Welcome to the April 22 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 seven cases this week. The court has heard 65 cases so far this term and decided three cases without argument. As of publication, the court 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 22
- In Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Argus Leader Media filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) how much money retailers receive from taxpayers each year. The USDA would not release the information, citing numerous FOIA exemptions. Argus filed a lawsuit against the USDA in U.S. District Court, which ruled in the USDA’s favor. On appeal, the 8th Circuit remanded the case.
On remand, the district court considered whether FOIA Exemption 4 applied to the information Argus was requesting. Exemption 4 is used to withhold "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."
The court ruled in favor of Argus and the USDA did not appeal the judgment. Instead, the petitioner Food Marketing Institute (FMI)—who was not named in the original lawsuit—filed the appeal. On appeal, the 8th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.
The issue: Does the term "confidential" in FOIA Exemption 4 require the government to withhold commercial or financial information that is not publicly released or does the entity withholding the information have to show disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm?
- In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, Lois Davis, an IT supervisor for Fort Bend County, Texas, sued the county in U.S. District Court alleging retaliation and religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After several appeals, the 5th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling dismissing Davis' claim. In its reversal, the 5th Circuit ruled a federal court could hear Title VII claims even if the plaintiff had not completed an administrative process required under Title VII. The ruling was consistent with holdings from seven other circuit courts and inconsistent with rulings from three circuit courts.
Title VII requires plaintiffs to file employment discrimination charges with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the alleged discrimination before filing suit in federal court. This is known as an administrative exhaustion requirement.
The issue: Whether Title VII's administrative exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, as three circuit courts have held, or a waivable claim-processing rule, as eight circuit courts have held.
April 23
- In Mitchell v. Wisconsin, a Sheboygan police officer arrested Gerald P. Mitchell for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and subsequently determined Mitchell needed to be taken to the hospital. The police officer read Mitchell a statutorily mandated form regarding the state implied consent law, but Mitchell was incapacitated and did not indicate understanding or consent. The officer instructed the hospital staff to conduct a blood test, which revealed a blood alcohol content above the legal limit.
Mitchell was charged with operating while intoxicated and with a prohibited alcohol concentration. He moved to suppress the blood test, arguing it was taken without a warrant. The state argued that under implied consent laws, Mitchell gave his permission to the blood test by operating the vehicle on a state road. A jury convicted him of the charges.
Mitchell appealed the conviction and the court of appeals certified his case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court with respect to the issue "whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law...violates the Fourth Amendment." In a 5-2 ruling with two justices writing a concurring decision, the state Supreme Court upheld the blood draw but did not have a majority for the rationale upholding it.
The issue: Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
- In Rehaif v. United States, Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif was in the U.S. on a nonimmigrant student visa. After he was no longer enrolled at the university, Rehaif's immigration status was terminated in February 2015. Rehaif remained in the U.S. and, in December 2015, purchased ammunition and rented a firearm at a shooting range. A grand jury charged Rehaif with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits a person who is illegally in the United States from possessing firearms or ammunition.
18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) defines punishment for § 922(g) crimes: "Whoever knowingly violates subsection ... (g) ... of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both."
At trial, the government and Rehaif requested different jury instructions. The district court instructed the jury as requested by the government and overruled an objection from Rehaif. On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed the convictions.
The issue: Whether the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, or whether it applies only to the possession element.
- Department of Commerce v. New York concerns a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
In March 2018, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the 2020 census would include a question about citizenship to help the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) enforce voting rights. Some states and civil rights groups then challenged the question's addition. They argued households with individuals residing in the country illegally would be less likely to respond to the census, resulting in an inaccurate count.
Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in a consolidated case on Jan. 15, 2019, holding that Ross violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not properly following APA procedure when including the citizenship question in the 2020 census.
The DOJ appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and requested the court bypass an appellate court decision in order to issue a ruling in time for the 2020 census.
The issues:
(1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.
(2) Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decision maker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials—without a strong showing that the decision maker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
(3) Whether the secretary of commerce's decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the Enumeration Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §2, CL. 3.
April 24
- In Quarles v. United States, the Western District of Michigan sentenced Jamar Quarles to 204 months in prison for committing a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The case was appealed, vacated, and remanded. On remand, the district court again sentenced Quarles to 204 months in prison and the 6th Circuit affirmed the ruling. The district court and the 6th Circuit agreed that Michigan law was not broader than federal law regarding the generic burglary definition from Taylor v. United States.
The issue: Whether, as two circuit courts hold, Taylor's definition of generic burglary requires proof that intent to commit a crime was present at the time of unlawful entry or first unlawful remaining, or as the 6th Circuit and three other circuits courts have ruled, it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime at any time while "remaining in" the building or structure.
- In Taggart v. Lorenzen, Bradley Taggart transferred his share in Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC (SPBC), to his attorney in 2007. Terry Emmert and Keith Jehnke, who also owned shares in SPBC, sued Taggart in state court, seeking attorneys' fees. In 2009, Taggart filed for bankruptcy and in 2010, he received his discharge from the bankruptcy proceedings. After the discharge, Emmert and Jehnke continued to seek attorneys' fees from Taggart.
Following litigation in both state and federal court, Emmert, Jehnke, and SPBC were prohibited from pursuing attorneys' fees. A ruling from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, affirmed by the 9th circuit, also held they did not knowingly violate Taggart's bankruptcy discharge.
The issue: Whether, under the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor's good-faith belief that the discharge injunction does not apply precludes a finding of civil contempt.
Opinions
SCOTUS has not ruled on any cases since our April 15 issue. The court has issued rulings in 27 cases so far this term.
Upcoming SCOTUS dates
Here are the upcoming dates of interest in April:
- April 22:
- SCOTUS will release orders.
- SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
- April 23: SCOTUS will hear arguments in three cases.
- April 24: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
- April 26: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.
- April 29: SCOTUS will release orders.
|
Between 2007 and 2018, how many opinions did SCOTUS release?
- 1,500
- 1,000
- 850
- 700
Choose an answer to find out!
|
Confirmations
The Senate has not confirmed any nominees since our April 15 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.
Nominations
President Trump has not announced any new Article III nominees since our April 15 edition.
The president has announced 179 Article III judicial nominations since taking office on 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.
Vacancies
The federal judiciary currently has 148 vacancies. As of publication, there were 64 pending nominations.
According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, an additional 15 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 did not report any new nominees out of committee since our April 15 edition.
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 New Hampshire. The District of New Hampshire has original jurisdiction over cases filed in the state. The court is headquartered in Concord.
Decisions of the court may be appealed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
The District of New Hampshire has three authorized judgeships. There are currently no vacancies. The breakdown of current active judges by appointing president is:
- Barack Obama (D): One judge
- George W. Bush (R): One judge
- George H.W. Bush (R): One judge
|
We'll be back April 29 with a new edition of Bold Justice. |
|
|
