Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Bold Justice: December 4, 2017

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bold Justice: Gambling and wedding cakes

The Supreme Court is back at work for the second week of its December argument session and we’ve got a full menu of Bold Justice in store for you. Cases this week will delve into rousing topics, including gambling, overseas assets, and...wedding cakes? Let’s get started!

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in five cases, including one of the most highly-anticipated cases of the upcoming term: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This case presents important questions surrounding freedom of religious exercise and freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Does Colorado's public accommodations law require the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop to make a wedding cake for a same-sex married couple if it violates his religious beliefs? We’ll soon find out.

The case

The case comes on an appeal of a judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Prior to their out-of-state nuptials, engaged same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins solicited a Colorado business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, to design and make a wedding cake. The owner, Jack C. Phillips, refused, citing religious objections to same-sex weddings, but offered to design and bake any other baked good the couple requested. The couple filed discrimination charges under Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits businesses and other places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission issued a cease-and-desist order to Masterpiece Cakeshop, which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld over Phillips' allegations that both the order and CADA violated his First Amendment freedoms of expression and religious exercise. A decision in the case is expected by June of next year.

The implications

The issue in this case is an issue under the First Amendment: whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The case has generated significant public attention. Adam Liptak of The New York Times interviewed Phillips, Craig, and Mullins in advance of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUSBlog, a blog dedicated to the U.S. Supreme Court, conducted a legal symposium on the case. The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Phillips. Phillips and his supporters contend that applying the law to his work threatens “his and all likeminded believers’ freedom to live out their religious identity in the public square.” Craig, Mullins, and their supporters argue that the law “does not compel speech, it merely requires public accommodations in the state to provide equal treatment to protected groups.”

We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

The U.S. Supreme Court returns for the second week of its two-week December argument session on Monday. As of 9 a.m. Monday, the court has agreed to hear arguments in 49 cases so far this term; of those 49, the court has heard arguments in 22 cases. SCOTUS typically adds more cases throughout the term. In its previous term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 71 cases. The court will continue to hear arguments in cases this term through April of 2018 and will continue to consider new appeals.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments this week in the following five cases:

  • On Monday, the court heard arguments in the consolidated cases Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association v. NCAA, both of which came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The case examines a federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibits states from authorizing by law any betting scheme on amateur or professional games. New Jersey, pursuant to a Third Circuit court ruling, modified its laws to prohibit gambling on team games, but the Third Circuit still held that the modifications violated PASPA. New Jersey responded that Congress commandeered New Jersey into enforcing federal programs by requiring New Jersey to adhere to PASPA's gambling restrictions. Thus, the main issue is whether or not PASPA violates the Constitution's anti-commandeering doctrine when it requires states to enforce federal regulations on gambling in the state.
    • West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin said that the case "has all the markings of a sleeper blockbuster." Beyond the issue of legalized gambling in states, the anti-commandeering doctrine "has received a lot of attention recently in an unrelated matter – as the primary defense made in several lawsuits against the Trump administration’s sanctuary cities policies." Any expansion or contraction of the doctrine could impact the regulatory relationship between federal and state governments.
  • The court also heard arguments in Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran on Monday. The issue in this case is whether assets held overseas by a non-state entity can be attached to a civil judgment in U.S. courts against a foreign government that engages in or materially supports terrorist activity. Depending on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, assets of foreign states held throughout the U.S. could be attached and enforced to civil judgments for terrorism. A 2009 decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia estimated that "upward of one thousand American nationals have been awarded billions of dollars in damages against the Islamic Republic of Iran by U.S. courts on the basis of state sponsorship of terrorist activity.”
  • The court will also hear arguments in Marinello v. United States' on Tuesday. The issue in this case is whether or not, in order to sustain a conviction under a catch-all provision of the Internal Revenue Code, a defendant was required to have knowledge of a pending government action against the defendant. Carlo J. Marinello II was convicted of violating a catch-all provision of the Internal Revenue Code, the omnibus clause, which criminalizes anyone who "corruptly ... obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration" of the Internal Revenue Code. Marinello was convicted pursuant to an investigation of which he had no knowledge. Marinello alleged that the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of the omnibus clause requiring a defendant's knowledge of an investigation or proceeding in order to sustain a conviction should mandate that his conviction on the omnibus charge be vacated. A federal district court and a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit disagreed, holding that prior knowledge of an investigation was not necessary to sustain a conviction under the omnibus clause. The case has generated a split among federal appeals courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court will often hear an appeal in order to address differences in interpretation among federal courts under Rule 10 of the court's rules of procedure.
  • On Wednesday, the court is scheduled to hear arguments in Murphy v. Smith. The issue in this case is one that could bring clarity to federal courts on whether a fixed percentage of a prisoner plaintiff's civil judgment must be earmarked for attorneys' fees or whether judges have some discretion in awarding fees up to a percentage cap. The case has generated a split among federal appeals courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court will often hear an appeal in order to address differences in interpretation among federal courts under Rule 10 of the court's rules of procedure.

SCOTUS trivia

Article III federal judges are appointed to life terms while serving "during good Behaviour," as stated in Section 1 of Article III of the United States Constitution. Once Supreme Court justices are confirmed, they are only removed from office by death, retirement, or impeachment. In the history of the Supreme Court, only one justice has been impeached.

Your question for the week: Who was that justice? Read on to find the answer below.

Confirmations

Last week, the U.S. Senate confirmed two of President Trump’s judicial nominees. On November 27, the Senate confirmed Dabney Langhorne Friedrich to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Only Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voted against Friedrich's confirmation. Friedrich will join the court once she takes her judicial oath and receives her judicial commission. On November 28, the Senate confirmed Greg Katsas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Two Republican senators did not vote on the nomination: Bob Corker (Tenn.) and John McCain (Ariz.) Both Friedrich and Katsas will join the court upon taking the judicial oath and receiving their judicial commissions. As of December 3, the Senate had confirmed 16 of President Trump’s judicial nominees.

Nominations

President Trump did not submit any judicial nominations to the U.S. Senate last week.

Vacancies

As of November 29, 2017, there were 141 vacancies in the federal judiciary out of 870 Article III life-term judicial positions. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and other outlets, an additional 17 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump's first term.

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee is not scheduled to conduct any nomination hearings this week.

Last week, the committee met on November 29 to hold nomination hearings for the following judicial nominees:

Current judicial vacancies

  • 142 judicial vacancies in life-term, Article III judicial positions
  • 41 pending nominations to life-term, Article III judicial positions
  • 17 future vacancies to life-term, Article III judicial positions
    • *This number includes judicial nominees who have been confirmed by the Senate, but have not received their judicial commissions.

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 Don Willett, a justice on the Texas Supreme Court and a judge you oughta know.

SCOTUS trivia answer

The answer to our SCOTUS trivia question is Justice Samuel Chase. Chase was nominated to the court by George Washington in 1796. In 1804, during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials. However, he was acquitted by the U.S. Senate, and he served on the court until his death in 1811.

Looking ahead

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

  • We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments in five cases and to possibly issue some opinions this week.

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:_December_4,_2017&oldid=8438544"