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

Bold Justice: January 8, 2018

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bold Justice: Voters, water, and automobiles

The Supreme Court is back in session for the first week of its 2018 calendar, and we’ve got a full menu of Bold Justice in store for you. Cases this week will delve into voter purge practices, water rights, and Fourth Amendment issues. Let’s go!

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in five cases. Those include two cases brought before the court through its original jurisdiction. Most cases come to the court through its appellate jurisdiction--most of the court’s cases are appeals from federal courts of appeal or state supreme court. However, in a small subset of cases, the Supreme Court is actually the first court to hear the case. Those cases fall under the court’s original jurisdiction. This week, the court will hear two original jurisdiction cases in which one state sued another state.


We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

As of publication today, the court has agreed to hear arguments in 55 cases so far this term; of those 55, the court has heard arguments in 25 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 Texas v. New Mexico. This is a case about the apportionment of water to Rio Grande Project beneficiaries. Texas initially filed a complaint in 2013, alleging that New Mexico was in violation of the Rio Grande Compact by unlawfully depleting the Rio Grande River. In 2014, the supreme court granted Texas' request to file a complaint and appointed a Special Master to investigate Texas' claims. The United States then moved to intervene in the dispute, claiming that the case implicated federal claims.

On February 9, 2017, the Special Master filed a report recommending that the supreme court deny New Mexico's motion to dismiss Texas' complaint. The report also recommended that the court grant New Mexico's motion to dismiss the United States' complaint but still hear some of the United States' claims against New Mexico.The issues in this appeal are 1) Should the supreme court allow the United States to intervene in the case? 2) Should the court consider the United States' claims related to the case outside of the Rio Grande Compact? At this stage of the case, the merits of Texas' claims are not being considered by the court.

  • The court also heard arguments on Monday in Florida v. Georgia. In 2013, Florida filed a complaint against Georgia, alleging that Georgia's use of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin was inequitable. Florida claimed that its Apalachicola region needed more water to sustain its ecosystems and fishing industries and asked the court to cap Georgia's consumption. Georgia responded that Florida's injuries as a result of insufficient water were not attributable to Georgia's water use. Georgia alleged that Florida's injuries were the results of Florida's own actions, of the decisions and operations by the Army Corps of Engineers, or of changes in weather patterns
    • The U.S. Supreme Court appointed a Special Master to investigate the case and make a recommendation to the court. After a lengthy investigation and a trial, the Special Master filed a report in which he concluded that the court did not have the power to remedy Florida's injuries because the practices of the Army Corps of Engineers played a significant role in the amount of water flowing into Florida, and the Corps was not a party to the suit. The Special Master recommended that the court dismiss Florida's complaint. Florida's objections to that report and recommendation are the subject of the current appeal.
  • On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments in Byrd v. United States. The issue in this case is whether a driver of a rental car who is neither the renter nor an authorized driver on the rental agreement has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. Terrence Byrd pleaded guilty to charges of possessing heroin with intent to distribute and possessing body armor as a prohibited person. Byrd was arrested after police officers found heroin and body armor in the trunk of a rental car Byrd was driving. The car had been rented by Byrd's fiance, but Byrd was not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement. At the time of the search, the officers told Byrd that they did not need his permission to search the car because he was not listed as an authorized driver. At trial, Byrd sought to suppress the evidence the officers found, arguing that the officers' search and some circumstances of the traffic stop violated his constitutional rights. The Third Circuit concluded that because Byrd was not listed as the renter or as an authorized driver on the rental agreement, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the car and therefore could not challenge the constitutionality of the officers' search. Byrd then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • The issue 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.
  • The court will also hear arguments in Collins v. Virginia on Tuesday. This case concerns the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on warrantless searches. Under the automobile exception, “If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment...permits police to search the vehicle without [a warrant].” The issue is whether the automobile exception allows an uninvited police officer without a warrant to enter private property and search a vehicle.
    • Ryan Collins was found guilty of receiving stolen property after a motorcycle in his possession was found to have been stolen. A police officer proved it was stolen by tracking its vehicle identification number (VIN). The officer obtained the VIN by entering private property without permission or a warrant, pulling off a tarp that had covered the motorcycle, and recording the VIN. Collins argued that the officer's warrantless search was unconstitutional and moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the search. The trial court denied his motion. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, concluding that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches applied and that the search was therefore lawful. Collins then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On Wednesday, the court is scheduled to hear arguments in Husted v. Randolph Institute. This case presents an important question as to the manner in which states can maintain their eligible voter rolls. Ohio had a process for deregistering inactive voters where, after two years of inactivity, a confirmation of address notice was sent to the voter's address on file with the county board of elections. If the voter both failed to engage in voter activity over a subsequent four-year period and failed to either respond to the notice or re-register to vote, the voter was removed from the state's rolls of eligible voters. A federal district court upheld the process, but a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the process violated Section 8(b)(2) of the National Voter Registration Act. The state's secretary of state, Jon Husted, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

SCOTUS trivia

This week’s trivia question is about the location of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since its creation, the United States Supreme Court has been housed in three different U.S. cities. Your trivia for the week: Name those three cities. 1) Washington, New York, and Boston 2) Washington, Philadelphia, and Richmond 3) Washington, New York, and Philadelphia 4) Washington, Boston, and Richmond

Choose an answer to find out!

Federal court action

Confirmations

The U.S. Senate has not confirmed any nominees since our last issue.

Nominations

Since our last issue, President Trump renominated 21 individuals he had previously nominated for judicial posts (their nominations were returned at the end of the last legislative session). He also announced ten new judicial nominees:

  • Joel Carson is a part-time federal magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. On December 20, 2017, President Donald Trump (R) nominated Carson to a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Carson earned his B.B.A. from Texas Tech University and his J.D. from the University of New Mexico School of Law. Carson was nominated to fill a seat that will become vacant next year.
  • Susan Baxter is a federal magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On December 20, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Baxter to be an Article III federal judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. She was previously nominated to this court by President Barack Obama on July 30, 2015. That nomination was returned to President Obama at the sine die adjournment of the 114th Congress. She received her B.S. degree from Pennsylvania State University in 1978, her Master of Education degree from Temple University in 1980, and her J.D. degree from the Temple University School of Law in 1983.
  • Colm Connolly is a federal magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On December 20, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated him to serve as an Article III federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Connolly earned his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame, his M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and his J.D. from Duke University School of Law.
  • Kari A. Dooley is a judge on the Waterbury District Superior Court in Connecticut. On December 20, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated her to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Dooley received her undergraduate degree in 1985 from Cornell University. She was awarded a J.D. from the University of Connecticut, School of Law in 1988.
  • Maryellen Noreika is a partner in the Wilmington law firm of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP. On December 20, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated her to serve as an Article III federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Noreika earned her B.S. from Lehigh University, her M.A. from Columbia University, and her J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh.
  • Jill Otake is an assistant United States attorney and acting chief of the Special Crime Section in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Hawaii. On December 20, 2016, President Donald Trump nominated her to serve as an Article III federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Otake earned her B.S., cum laude, from Georgetown University and her J.D. from the University of Washington School of Law.
  • William Jung is a partner at the Tampa, Fla.-based law firm of Jung and Sisco, P.A. (formerly Black & Jung, P.A.). He co-founded the firm in 1993. On December 21, 2017, President Donald Trump (R) nominated him to serve as an Article III federal judge on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Jung earned his bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, from Vanderbilt University in 1980. He earned his J.D., summa cum laude, from the University of Illinois College of Law in 1983.

Vacancies

As of January 5, 2017, there were 149 vacancies in the federal judiciary out of 870 Article III life-term judicial positions. Of those 144 vacancies, 101 have had no nominee put forth as yet during President Trump’s administration. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and other outlets, an additional 23 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term. Including the 21 renominated by the president on January 5, there are 48 pending nominations to life-term, Article III judicial positions. Check out the chart below to see vacancies of four years or more:

Longest fed court vacancies 1.18.2018.png

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee has not met since our last issue. This week, the Committee is scheduled to meet to consider nominations on Wednesday, January 10.

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 Amy Coney Barrett, a recent appointee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a judge you oughta know. She was nominated to the Seventh Circuit in 2017 by President Trump. Before her appointment to the bench, she was a law professor at Notre Dame Law School. She previously clerked for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in 2016.

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.
  • We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to issue orders and possibly opinions this week.
  • We expect the Judiciary Committee to consider additional nominees 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:_January_8,_2018&oldid=8438597"