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

Bold Justice: April 29, 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!

Ballotpedia's Bold Justice

Welcome to the April 29 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Not sure what to do with yourself now that SCOTUS has finished hearing oral arguments? Don't worry! Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the most up-to-date political information.

We #SCOTUS so you don't have to

Arguments

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the final cases of its October 2018 term. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' current term.

Opinions

SCOTUS has ruled on two cases since our April 22 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 22:

April 23

In May 2015, Emulex Corp., a technology company, merged with Avago Technologies Wireless Manufacturing, Inc. Avago had agreed to pay $8.00 per share for outstanding Emulex stock—26.4% higher than the value of Emulex stock at the time of the merger announcement. 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 misled them and violated federal securities laws, specifically Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit reversed part of the district court's ruling.

The outcome: In a per curiam decision, the court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Dismissed as improvidently granted, often referred to as DIG, occurs when the court chooses not to decide a case, even after accepting the appeal or hearing the arguments.

A per curiam decision is issued collectively by the court. The authorship is not indicated. Click here for more information.

April 24

Frank Varela tried to file a class action complaint against his employer, Lamps Plus, after the company released his personal information in response to a phishing scam. Citing Varela’s signed employment contract, Lamps Plus moved to compel bilateral arbitration. The district court found that the agreement was ambiguous on class arbitration and allowed the class-wide arbitration to proceed.

The outcome: In a 5-4 decision, the court reversed and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said "[c]ourts may not infer from an ambiguous agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide basis."


Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Breyer and Sotomayor also filed separate dissenting opinions. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined, and which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Part II.

Upcoming SCOTUS dates

Here are the upcoming dates of interest in April and May:

  • April 29: 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.

  • May 9: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices where justices decide which cases to accept or reject and discuss and vote on cases heard since the previous conference.
SCOTUS trivia

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. What is the post-cloture limit for circuit court judges and Supreme Court justices?

  1. 3 hours
  2. 12 hours
  3. 24 hours
  4. 30 hours

Choose an answer to find out!
Federal Court action

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 June 3 issue of Bold Justice will include the next Federal Vacancy Count.

This month's edition includes nominations, confirmations, and vacancies from March 28 to April 24, 2019.

Highlights

  • Vacancies: There was one new judicial vacancy since the March 2019 report. As of April 24, 137 of 870 active Article III judicial positions on courts covered in this report were vacant—a vacancy percentage of 15.7 percent.
    Including the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States territorial courts, 148 of 890 active federal judicial positions are vacant.
     
  • Nominations: There have been two new nominations and 12 renominations since the March 2019 report.
     
  • Confirmations: There have been five new confirmations since the March 2019 report.

Vacancy count for April 24, 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.

New vacancies

The following judge left active status, creating an Article III vacancy. As an Article III judicial position, it must be filled by a nomination from the president. Nominations are subject to Senate confirmation.

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



New nominations

President Trump announced two new nominations since the March 2019 report.

  • Steven Grimberg, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
     
  • Frank W. Volk, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

The president also renominated 12 individuals.

  • Gary R. Brown, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
     
  • Stephanie A. Gallagher, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
     
  • Diane Gujarati, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
     
  • Lewis Liman, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
     
  • Eric Komitee, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
     
  • Rachel Kovner, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
     
  • Mary McElroy, to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
     
  • Martha Pacold, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
     
  • Mary Rowland, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
     
  • Steven Seeger, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
     
  • John Sinatra, to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
     
  • Mary Kay Vyskocil, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The president has announced 179 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 March 28 and April 24, 2019, the Senate confirmed five of the president’s nominees to Article III courts. Since January 2017, the Senate has confirmed 97 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—58 district court judges, 37 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices.

Changes to Senate rules

The five U.S. District Court nominees noted above were the first confirmed under new rules the Senate adopted 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.

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 May 6 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_29,_2019&oldid=8439626"