Bold Justice: February 25, 2019

%%subject%%

Alexander Hamilton may have thought them the least dangerous branch, but we at Ballotpedia think federal courts are the most exciting!

Welcome to the Feb. 25 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Looking for more ways to learn about the federal judiciary? Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the most up-to-date political information!

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases this week. The court has heard 45 cases so far this term. As of publication, it has agreed to hear 74 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:

Feb. 25

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck concerns the First Amendment's limitation on governmental restriction of free speech and public access television channels.

A public access station operated by the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) in New York City suspended two contributors from using the station's services and facilities for allegedly harassing and inciting violence against other MNN employees. The contributors then filed a lawsuit claiming MNN was violating their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment only applies to state actors (a person who is acting on behalf of the government), and the district court ruled that MNN was not a state actor. The Second Circuit Court disagreed, ruling that MNN was a state actor.

The issue: Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting the Supreme Court's state actor tests and instead creating a general rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional liability. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding—contrary to the Sixth and D.C. Circuits—that private entities operating public access television stations are state actors for constitutional purposes where the state has no control over the private entity's board or operations.

Feb. 26

Mont v. United States concerns supervised release for criminals.

In 2005, Jason Mont was convicted on federal drug charges and sentenced to 120 months in prison and five years of supervised release. In 2017, Mont was sentenced for committing state-level crimes. The U.S. District Court then decided whether he violated the terms of his supervised release and sentenced Mont to 42 months in prison to be served consecutively with his imprisonment for state-court convictions.

The issue: “Whether a period of supervised release for one offense is tolled under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) during a period of pretrial confinement that upon conviction is credited toward a defendant’s term of imprisonment for another offense,” according to SCOTUSblog.

Is a district court required to exercise its jurisdiction in order to suspend the running of a supervised release sentence as directed under 18 U.S.C. §3583(i) before expiration of the term of supervised release, when a supervised release is in pretrial detention, or does 18 U.S.C. §3624(e) toll the running of supervised release while in pretrial detention?
In United States v. Haymond, Andre Ralph Haymond was convicted of possession and attempted possession of child pornography in 2010. He was on supervised release in 2015 when probation officers seized a phone and four computers during a surprise search of his apartment. Following a forensic search of the devices, officers found Haymond had committed five violations of the conditions of his supervised release. Haymond was sentenced to five years in jail. Haymond appealed, arguing the court did not have sufficient evidence to convict him of one of the five violations and that he had been deprived of due process.

The issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding "unconstitutional and unenforceable" the portions of 18 U.S.C. 3583(k) that required the district court to revoke respondent's ten-year term of supervised release, and to impose five years of reimprisonment, following its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent violated the conditions of his release by knowingly possessing child pornography.

Feb. 27

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association concerns a World War I memorial cross on public land.

In 1961, a government planning commission in Maryland purchased land that a cross honoring World War I veterans stands on. The American Humanist Association and some non-Christian residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, said the cross offended them. They argued the government's maintenance of the memorial was an endorsement of Christianity and a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The issues: Whether the memorial is unconstitutional because it is shaped like a cross.

Whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), or some other test.

Whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), applies, the expenditure of funds for routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

This case is consolidated with Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association.

Rulings

The Supreme Court ruled on two cases this week. The court has issued rulings on 10 cases so far this term.

Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on this week:

Feb. 20

Timbs v. Indiana concerns the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines. It was argued before the court on November 28, 2018.

When Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to a drug charge, he was ordered as part of his sentence to forfeit his Land Rover, on the grounds that he had transported drugs in the vehicle. A state appeals court ruled in favor of Timbs, who argued that the forfeiture was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's clause prohibiting excessive fines. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court had never ruled that the excessive fines clause applied to state governments.

The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the court vacated and remanded the opinion of the Indiana Supreme Court, holding that "the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause."

Dawson v. Steager concerns federal retirement benefits and state income taxes. It was argued before the court on December 3, 2018.

James Dawson retired from the U.S. Marshal Service in 2008. West Virginia allows some state and local retired law enforcement officers to exempt their retirement benefits from the state income tax. Dawson, receiving benefits from the Federal Employee Retirement System, sought to exempt his retirement income from the state income tax. The tax commissioner denied the exemption. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision, ruling that the state's tax on Dawson's retirement income was not in conflict with U.S. law.

The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, SCOTUS reversed and remanded the opinion of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, holding that "the West Virginia statute unlawfully discriminates against Mr. Dawson as §111 forbids. A State violates §111 when it treats retired state employees more favorably than retired federal employees and no 'significant differences between the two classes' justify the differential treatment."

SCOTUS has heard 45 arguments so far in its October 2018 term. One case questions whether the U.S. attorney general's authority to issue regulations pursuant to the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act violates the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that legislative bodies cannot delegate their legislative powers to executive agencies or private entities. In other words, lawmakers cannot allow others to make laws.

Name that case!

Apple v. Pepper

Gundy v. United States

Choose an answer to find out!

Want a deeper dive into understanding the nondelegation doctrine? Today, we launched our first Learning Journey, and it happens to be on the nondelegation doctrine! Sign up, and you’ll receive five days of emails with opportunities to learn and engage with the topic. Check it out here.

Confirmations

The Senate has not confirmed any additional nominees since our Feb. 18 issue.

The Senate has confirmed 85 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—53 district court judges, 30 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices—since January 2017.

New nominations

President Trump has not announced any new nominees since our Feb. 18 edition.

The president has announced 168 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.

Vacancies

The federal judiciary currently has 151 vacancies. As of publication, there were 60 pending nominations.

According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, an additional 20 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.

[[File: Federal judicial nominations by month (2017-2019).png|center|600px]]

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee has not reported any new nominees out of committee since our Feb. 18 issue.

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? 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 13 United States courts of appeals, or circuit courts.

In this edition, we're headed to the capital to visit the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit has jurisdiction over cases heard by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.
The D.C. Circuit has 11 authorized judgeships. Democratic presidents appointed seven of the court's 10 current judges. There is one vacancy.

SCOTUS has heard 36 appeals of D.C. Circuit decisions since 2007 and reversed 21 of them (58.3 percent).

We'll be back with a new edition of Bold Justice on Mar. 18, 2019.

Why subscribe to Bold Justice?

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.

Bold Justice: February 25, 2019

Feb. 25

Feb. 26

Feb. 27

Rulings

Feb. 20

Confirmations

New nominations

Vacancies

Committee action

Contents

Why subscribe to Bold Justice?

Archive

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Why Bold Justice?

Information about voting

2025 Elections

2026 Elections

2024 Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION