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

Bold Justice: July 2, 2018

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!

Forward This blank Tweet This blank Send to Linkedin blank Send to Facebook blank blank blank
Ballotpedia's Bold Justice

We have opinions! The Supreme Court issued six opinions last week, closing out the October 2017-2018 term. Here we go!

We'll be taking a cue from the Justices and breaking out our beach chairs for summer. Until further notice this publication will go out the first Monday of the month, so we will see you August 1st! Worried you'll miss us? 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

In total, the Supreme Court heard argument and issued opinions in 69 cases this term, all of which you can track on our term overview page. Here are this terms final opinions:

  • In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on the Trump administration’s travel ban, ruling that the plaintiffs who filed suit to block the ban had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The court reversed a lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the lower courts for further proceedings. The court had previously stopped the majority of the injunction from going into effect.

    On September 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued a presidential proclamation outlining new travel restrictions for individuals traveling from eight different countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Somalia. The proclamation replaced two earlier executive orders that also imposed travel restrictions. Plaintiffs who had challenged those earlier orders amended their suit to include the September 2017 order. The Supreme Court issued a stay that prevented lower courts' injunctions against the order from going into effect while the appeal was pending. On December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's ruling enjoining the September 2017 order from going into effect. The Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against part of the proclamation, concluding that the president had exceeded his authority in issuing it.

    In a 5 - 4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. Roberts was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. Focusing its decision on the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, the court concluded that the plaintiffs could not show likelihood that they would succeed on the merits in the case (plaintiffs must show they are likely to succeed on the merits in order for a court to grant a preliminary injunction) because the order fell within the president’s broad power over immigration matters. Reviewing immigration law and presidential authority over immigration, Roberts wrote, “The Proclamation does not exceed any textual limit on the president's authority.” The plaintiffs had argued that the proclamation was motivated by religious animus and argued that President Trump’s other public statements about immigration and Islam supported their case. Roberts ruled that while the court may consider those arguments, the court “will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.” He concluded, “Under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.

    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented from the court’s ruling. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that she believed the plaintiffs had demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits. She wrote, “The majority holds otherwise by ignoring the facts [and] misconstruing our legal precedent . . . Whatever the merits of plaintiffs’ complex statutory claims, the Proclamation must be enjoined for a more fundamental reason: It runs afoul of the Establishment Clause’s guarantee of religious neutrality.”
  • In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), the Supreme Court voted to overruled Abood v. Detroit Education Association, a 1977 case in which the Supreme Court had ruled that public sector unions could charge non-union members fees to support the parts of unions' work from which those employees benefited. In this case, Janus v. AFSCME, a public sector employee in Illinois challenged Illinois' agency fee arrangement, arguing that being required to pay the fees violated his First Amendment rights.

    In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, a majority of the Supreme Court agreed. Alito concluded that the agency fee arrangement "violates the First Amendment and cannot continue." He rejected arguments about states' and unions' reliance on the Abood decision, writing, "no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Aboodhas countenanced for the past 41 years."

    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented. In Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by all the dissenting justices, Kagan argued that Abood was a workable precedent that was "deeply entrenched, in both the law and the real world" and should not have been overruled. She argued, "The balance Aboodstruck between public employers’ interests and public employees’ expression is right at home in First Amendment doctrine."

Wondering where the cases came from this term? Check out this chart showing the number of appeals from each lower court:

Court news

Justice Kennedy announces retirement

Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he was retiring from the Supreme Court of the United States, effective July 31, 2018. In an official release, Kennedy cited a desire to spend more time with his family as the reason for his retirement. Kennedy was considered by many to be the court's swing vote, often casting the deciding vote between the court's more conservative and liberal members. His retirement will allow President Donald Trump (R) an opportunity to make his second appointment to the nation's highest court.

In his 30-year career on the bench, Kennedy authored a number of noteworthy opinions: Obergefell v. Hodges, Citizens United v. FEC, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey.

Reactions

  • The White House released the following statement on June 27, 2018:

"Today, we thank Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for his thirty years of distinguished service on the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1987, President Reagan nominated him to the Court, and he was swiftly confirmed without opposition. A Californian—like the President who appointed him—Justice Kennedy is a true man of letters. During his tenure on the Court, he authored landmark opinions in every significant area of constitutional law, most notably on equal protection under the law, the separation of powers, and the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and religion.

Justice Kennedy has been a tireless voice for individual rights and the Founders’ enduring vision of limited government. His words have left an indelible mark not only on this generation, but on the fabric of American history."

"The Senate stands ready to fulfill its constitutional role by offering advice and consent on President Trump’s nominee to fill this vacancy. We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor this fall."

"This is the most important Supreme Court vacancy for this country in at least a generation. Nothing less than the fate of our health care system, reproductive rights for women, and countless other protections for middle-class Americans are at stake."

  • Brent Kendall, The Wall Street Journal:

"Justice Kennedy’s decision to step down is a seismic event in the nation’s capital, one certain to create an impassioned political battle over the Supreme Court. … Justice Kennedy’s departure gives Mr. Trump the chance to shift the court in a considerably more conservative direction—potentially for decades. More immediately, it sets the stage for what is likely to be the toughest fight over a court seat in recent memory, with congressional elections looming and liberals still angry over Republicans’ refusal to consider former President Barack Obama’s nominee for the most recent vacancy."

  • Dylan Matthews, Vox:

"An America after Anthony Kennedy looks significantly different from America before. The movement against mass incarceration could run into unprecedented resistance from the Court, and the anti-abortion movement could notch its greatest victories in a half-century. This Supreme Court vacancy will give Donald Trump the power to shift jurisprudence on a range of critical issues. It could wind up being the most important part of his legacy."

Next in the process

Although the rules for appointing and confirming a U.S. Supreme Court justice are set out in the U.S. Constitution, the process for choosing nominees is not codified in law.  It is not uncommon for the president to consult Senate leadership and the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee before deciding on a nominee. President Trump said on Tuesday that his nominee will come from a list of 25 possible nominees that the White House released in November. On  Thursday, Politico reported that the White House is hoping to have a nominee before July 10.

Possible nominees

The names below appeared on a list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees released in November 2017. Trump said that Kennedy's successor would come from this list:

For more information on Kennedy's Supreme Court vacancy, click here.

Federal Court action

Confirmations

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

The Senate has confirmed 42 of President Trump’s nominees to federal courts tracked in Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count.

Nominations

President Trump did not announce any new nominations last week.

Vacancies

There are currently 153 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 153 vacancies, 64 have no nominee as of yet during President Trump’s administration. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and other outlets, an additional 30 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term. There are 89 pending nominations to seats tracked by Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count.

Committee action

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to report nominees out of committee for a full confirmation vote. Five nominees were reported and will now face a confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate:

  • Holly A. Brady, nominee for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

  • Andrew Lynn Brasher, nominee for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

  • James Patrick Hanlon, nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

  • David Steven Morales, nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

  • Lance E. Walker, nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Maine.

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.

Looking ahead

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

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee is not scheduled to meet in July.

Bold Justice has thousands of loyal readers each week.

Want to reach them? Advertise in this email!

Contact ads@ballotpedia.org for details.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to theLucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.

Donate securely online
Copyright © %%current_year_YYYY%%, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
%%account_address%%

 
Facebook
 
Twitter

 
Decide which emails you want from Ballotpedia.
Unsubscribe or update your subscription preferences.


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!