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

Bold Justice: January 14, 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 Jan. 14 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Is keeping up with judicial news part of your new year's resolution? If so, 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

This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in six cases, all of which came to it through its appellate jurisdiction (most of the court’s cases are appeals from federal courts of appeal or state supreme courts).

The court has heard 38 cases so far this term. As of publication, it has agreed to hear 65 cases. In its October 2017 term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 69 cases.

Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS will hear this week:

Jan. 14

  • Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority: On July 30, 2013, Gary Thacker and Anthony Szozda were fishing on the Tennessee River while the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was trying to raise a downed power line from the river. Thacker and Szozda's boat came through the area as TVA was raising the power line, and the two were hit by the conductor. Szozda was killed and Thacker was seriously injured. Thacker and his wife, Venida, sued TVA for negligence. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the circuit court affirmed.

    The issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred by using a “discretionary-function exception” derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act, from which the Supreme Court generally has declined to borrow rules, instead of the test set forth in Federal Housing Authority v. Burr when testing the immunity of governmental “sue and be sued” entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority), to immunize the Tennessee Valley Authority from the plaintiffs’ claims.

  • Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.: Rimini Street Inc. provides third-party support for Oracle's software, in competition with Oracle's own maintenance service. In order to compete more effectively, Rimini downloaded Oracle's software updates from its website in violation of the website's terms of use. Oracle sued Rimini Street for copyright infringement. A jury ruled against Rimini, awarding Oracle $124 million, including attorney’s fees and costs. The Ninth Circuit Court decreased the award amount but affirmed the district court's verdict.

    The issue: Whether the Copyright Act's allowance of "full costs" (17 U.S.C. § 505) to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the Eighth and 11th Circuits have held, or also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the Ninth Circuit holds.

Jan. 15

  • Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson: In 2016, Citibank filed a debt collection action against George Jackson in a Mecklenburg County district court in North Carolina. Citibank alleged that Jackson failed to pay for a water treatment system he purchased using a Citibank-issued credit card. Jackson filed a counterclaim and third-party class action claims against Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems, Inc. (CWS) for engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices. Citibank then dismissed its claims against Jackson. Home Depot filed a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) and moved to realign the parties with Jackson as plaintiff and Home Depot, CWS, and Citibank as defendants. Jackson then amended his third-party complaint to remove Citibank. The Mecklenburg County district court denied Home Depot’s motion to realign and granted Jackson’s motion to remand.

    The issue: Whether an original defendant to a class-action claim can remove the class action if it otherwise satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act when the class action was originally asserted as a counterclaim against a co-defendant. The court also directed the parties to brief and argue the following question: Should this court’s holding in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 u. S. 100 (1941)—that an original plaintiff may not remove a counterclaim against it—extend to third-party counterclaim defendants?

  • Azar v. Allina Health Services:  Several hospitals challenged the way that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) changed the formula it used to calculate Medicare reimbursement rates for the 2012 fiscal year.

    The issue: Whether HHS was required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before changing the Medicare reimbursement formula.

Jan. 16

  • Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania: Mary Rose Knick challenged an ordinance passed by the Township of Scott in Pennsylvania, arguing it violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Under an earlier Supreme Court case, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, plaintiffs are required to exhaust all state court remedies before filing a takings claim in federal court. A U.S. District Court, citing Williamson, dismissed Knick's lawsuit, ruling that Knick had failed to exhaust her state remedies. The Third Circuit affirmed.

    The issue: Should the Supreme Court overturn the exhaustion requirement established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank?

  • Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd: The Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) deferred voting on two liquor license applications due to state residency requirements for obtaining a liquor license. The Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association told the TABC that it would likely file suit in representation of the two businesses in question. The state attorney general then sought a declaratory judgment on whether the residency rules were constitutional.

    The issue: Whether the 21st Amendment allows states, consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time.
SCOTUS trivia

Certain courts are general jurisdiction courts, meaning they have the authority to hear a variety of different cases. There are also subject-matter courts, which are authorized to hear and determine cases based on the subject of a particular case. Which of the following courts below is a subject-matter jurisdiction court?

  1. The United States Supreme Court
  2. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  3. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine
  4. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit

Choose an answer to find out!
Federal Court action

Confirmations

The United States Senate did not confirm any additional nominees since our January 7 issue.

The Senate has confirmed 85 federal judges—53 district court judges, 30 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices—nominated by President Donald Trump (R).

New nominations

President Trump has announced 161 Article III judicial nominations since taking office Jan. 20, 2017. The president nominated 69 judicial nominees in 2017 and 92 in 2018.



Vacancies

The federal judiciary currently has 145 vacancies. As of publication, there were no pending nominations. All outstanding nominations were returned to the president at the sine die adjournment of the 115th Congress.

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 did not report any new nominees out of committee since our January 7 issue.

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

Need a daily fix? Our Federal Vacancy Warning System has got you covered with 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.
A judge you oughta know

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 crossing the Golden Gate Bridge to visit the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over the 13 U.S. District Courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state. It also has appellate jurisdiction over the territorials courts in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Ninth Circuit has 29 authorized judgeships. Democratic presidents appointed 17 of the court's 23 current judges. There are six vacancies.

Since 2007, SCOTUS has heard 167 appeals of Ninth Circuit decisions since 2007. It has reversed 126 decisions (75.5 percent).
Looking ahead

We'll be back with a new edition of Bold Justice Jan. 21, 2019.


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:_January_14,_2019&oldid=8439129"