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

Bold Justice: April 23, 2018

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bold Justice: The end of arguments

It’s the final week of arguments of the October 2017 term! The court is heading out with a busy week of six arguments, including two consolidated cases. Ready, set, go!

We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

This week, the court will finish out its argument calendar with its final six arguments of the term:

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases. First, in Lucia v. SEC, the court will consider who is an officer under the United States Constitution. Raymond J. Lucia and Raymond J. Lucia Companies (referred to collectively as Lucia) were party to an administrative proceeding before an SEC administrative law judge (ALJ). After an adverse ruling from the ALJ, Lucia appealed to the SEC for review. Lucia argued that the administrative proceeding had been unconstitutional because the ALJ had not been properly appointed. Lucia argued that the ALJ was an Officer of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause; therefore, Lucia claimed, the ALJ's appointment had to have been directly ratified by the SEC. At the time, SEC staff appointed ALJs and they were not directly ratified by the commissioners themselves. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that ALJs did not qualify as officers under the Appointments Clause, and Lucia appealed to the Supreme Court. Next, in Pereira v. Sessions, the court will consider what kind of notice the government must provide in order to stop a residency clock for immigration purposes. Under U.S. immigration law, people who have stayed in the United States illegally may be allowed to legally remain if they meet certain continuous residency requirements. The clock for continuous residency stops when the Department of Homeland Security issues a notice to appear for an immigration hearing. Wescley Fonseca Pereira, who had overstayed his visitor's visa in the United States, received a notice to appear in 2006. He argued that the notice did not stop his residency clock because the notice did not state a time or place to appear for a hearing. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) disagreed and ordered Pereira removed. Pereira then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. The First Circuit deferred to the BIA’s interpretation, and Pereira appealed to the Supreme Court. Finally, in Chavez-Meza v. United States, the court will consider whether a district court provide additional explanation beyond the standard sentencing form when it revises a defendant's sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Adaucto Chavez-Meza pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy charges and was sentenced to the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines range applicable to his convictions. The sentencing guidelines were later amended, lowering the applicable range. Chavez-Meza moved for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of the amendment. The district court reduced his original sentence, but not to the lowest end of the newly-amended range. In making the reduction, the district court filled out the standard sentencing form but did not provide any additional explanation for its decision. Chavez-Meza appealed, arguing that the district court was required by the statute to explain its ruling.

On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments in the consolidated Abbott v. Perez redistricting cases and Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome. Abbott v. Perez and Abbott v. Perez are consolidated cases concerning legislative redistributing in Texas. In August 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued two rulings finding that Texas' 2013 maps for congressional districts 27 and 35 and nine state House districts had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent, unconstitutionally diluting the impact of racial minority votes in those districts. The appellants (state officials) disputed these rulings on both procedural and substantive grounds and appealed the decisions to the Supreme Court. In Animal Science, the court will consider whether U.S. courts are required to defer to a foreign government's interpretation of its own law. Two U.S. companies filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court against several Chinese companies, claiming that those companies had violated U.S. antitrust law by collectively fixing prices and supplies of Vitamin C exports from China. A division of the Chinese government filed a brief in the district court, stating that the companies were required to set prices under Chinese law. The district court allowed the case to proceed to trial. After a jury found in favor of the U.S. companies, the Chinese companies appealed to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit ruled that the district court was required to defer to the Chinese government's interpretation of Chinese law. Concluding that Chinese and American law were in conflict, the Second Circuit dismissed the U.S. companies' lawsuit.

Finally, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Hawaii, one of the most watched cases of the term. This case is the challenge to President Trump’s September executive order banning travelers to the United States from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad. There are two issues before the court: 1) Whether the travel ban order was within or exceeded the President’s power; and 2) Whether the order violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the government from favoring any religion over another. However, the court may also consider whether it has the power to review the case in the first place. We expect a decision in the case by the end of the court’s term in June.

The court may also release new orders and could release new opinions.

The remaining unscheduled cases of the term have been moved to next term’s docket. In all, after the arguments this week, the Supreme Court will have heard argument in 69 cases this term.

Wondering where the cases came from this term? Check out this chart showing the number of appeals from each lower court:

SCOTUS cases 4.16.18.png

SCOTUS trivia

This week’s question is about one of the most famous cases in SCOTUS history, Brown v. Board of Education. Your question: Who was the chief justice of the court when Brown was decided?

1) Earl Warren
2) Warren Burger

3) Fred Vinson

4) Harlan Fiske Stone

Choose an answer to find out!

Federal court action

Confirmations

The Senate did not confirm any additional nominees this week.

Nominations

President Trump did not announce any new nominees this week.

Vacancies

There are currently 149 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 149 vacancies, 80 have no nominee as of yet during President Trump’s administration. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and other outlets, an additional 31 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term. There are 73 pending nominations to seats tracked by Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count. Check out the chart below to see vacancies of four years or more:

Longest federal court vacancies 4.23.18.png

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee met on April 19 and voted to report out the following nominees for full confirmations votes in the Senate:

The Committee is scheduled to on April 25 and 27 to consider additional nominees.

Love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancies information? We figured. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count, which is published on the last Wednesday of every month, monitors all of the faces, places, and spaces moving in, moving out, and moving on in the federal judiciary.

Need a daily fix? Our Federal Vacancy Warning System’s got you covered with continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees.

Or, if you prefer, we maintain a list of individuals nominated by President Trump.

A judge you oughta know

Every week, we at Ballotpedia want to highlight a federal judge or judicial nominee. We’re in our review of President Donald Trump’s list of 25 individuals from which he indicated he would choose nominees to fill Supreme Court vacancies. This week, let’s get to know Patrick Wyrick, a judge on the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and a judge you oughta know. He joined the court in 2017 after being nominated by Gov. Mary Fallin (R). Wyrick received his bachelor's degree from the University of Oklahoma and his J.D.from the University of Oklahoma College of Law. He previously served as the solicitor general of Oklahoma from 2011-2017.

Looking ahead

Here’s what we’re looking ahead to this week:

  • We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to hear six arguments next week, its last argument week of the term.
  • We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to release orders and possibly new opinions.
  • We expect the Senate Judiciary Committee to meet to consider additional nominees.

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_23,_2018&oldid=8438580"