|
|
|
|
We have opinions! The Supreme Court issued four opinions last week. Here we go!
|
In total, the Supreme Court heard argument in 69 cases this term, all of which you can track on our term overview page. Of those 69, the court has issued opinions in 39 cases. The court usually issues the remainder of its opinions by the end of June. Here are this week’s opinions:
-
In Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling that a statement about a single asset can be a statement respecting the debtor's financial condition for bankruptcy purposes. In this case, a debtor filed for bankruptcy and sought to discharge his debt to a law firm. The law firm argued that the debt was nondischargeable because the debtor had obtained the debt through a false statement about one of his assets. The debtor argued that his statement fell within an exception that allowed for discharge of a fraudulently obtained debt if the fraudulent statement at issue was a statement respecting the debtor's financial condition. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in the debtor's favor.
Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed. Sotomayor ruled, "The statutory language makes plain that a statement about a single asset can be a 'statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition.' If that statement is not in writing, then, the associated debt may be discharged, even if the statement was false." Moreover, she wrote, if Congress had intended the statute "to encompass only statements expressing the balance of a debtor's assets and liabilities," it could have used specific language. But, she concluded, "Congress did not use such narrow language." Based on that reasoning, she ruled, “a statement about a single asset can be a 'statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition' under §523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code."
-
In Koons v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that defendants who receive sentencing reductions from mandatory minimum sentences are not eligible for further sentencing reductions if the sentencing guidelines for their convictions are retroactively reduced. In this case, several defendants had provided assistance to law enforcement. As part of their guilty pleas, the government requested and the court granted a reduction in their sentences as a result of that assistance. The reduction for assistance meant that they were sentenced to periods of imprisonment below the mandatory minimums for the crimes to which they pleaded guilty. After their pleas, the United States Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered the sentencing guidelines for the crimes for which they were convicted. The defendants requested a reduction in their sentences. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that they were not entitled to a reduction because the reductions they received in exchange for providing assistance were based on mandatory minimums, not on the sentencing guidelines.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit, ruling that the defendants were not entitled to sentencing reductions. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. Alito wrote that the advisory sentencing guidelines "can be overridden by other considerations . . . This is what happened here." In this case, he continued, the sentencing trial courts had "discarded the advisory ranges in favor of the mandatory minimum sentences."
-
Finally, in Hughes v. United States, the court ruled that defendants who enter particular plea agreements are eligible for sentencing reductions if the Sentencing Guidelines are retroactively lowered. Erik Hughes pleaded guilty to two criminal counts. His plea agreement dictated that he would be sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. After he entered his guilty plea, the U.S. Sentencing Commission retroactively reduced the Sentencing Guidelines range for the crimes to which he had pleaded guilty. Hughes moved for a reduction in his sentence. The district court dismissed his request, ruling that under Freeman v. United States, Hughes was not entitled to a sentencing reduction because his original sentence had not been based on the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.
On a vote of 7 - 3, the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion for the court, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch. Kennedy wrote that outside of narrow exceptions, like the exception for mandatory minimums the court announced in Hughes, "a defendant's sentence will be 'based on' his Guidelines range." Because the Guidelines "are a district court's starting point," it followed that "when the Commission lowers a defendant's Guidelines range the defendant will be eligible for relief . . . absent clear demonstration, based on the record as a whole, that the court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines." In this case, he continued, the district court had expressly concluded that the agreed sentence was consistent and compatible with the Guidelines. Therefore, Kennedy concluded, Hughes was eligible for a sentencing reduction based on the retroactive change.
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Roberts did not agree that plea agreements of the type at issue in this case were "based on" the Guidelines. He argued that when the defendant and the prosecutor agree to a plea, the district court does not have discretion to change the term of imprisonment based on the Guidelines; the court is only empowered to accept or reject the agreement. In other words, he wrote, "the sentence is set by the parties, not by a judge applying the Guidelines."
-
We took a look at the court's opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in last week's issue of Bold Justice. Click here to read more.
Wondering where the cases came from this term? Check out this chart showing the number of appeals from each lower court:
|
The court currently has one chief justice and eight associate justices, but Congress passed several pieces of legislation throughout U.S. history that changed the number of justices. What legislative act established nine justices, one for each circuit?
-
The Judiciary Act of 1789
-
The Tenth Circuit Act of 1863
-
The Judicial Circuits Act of 1866
-
The Judiciary Act of 1869
Choose an answer to find out!
|
Confirmations
The United States Senate confirmed three 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 announced 12 new nominations last week:
-
Jonathan A. Kobes of South Dakota, to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.
-
Eric E. Murphy of Ohio, to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
-
Chad A. Readler of Ohio, to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
-
Rossie D. Alston, Jr., of Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
-
M. Miller Baker of Louisiana, to the United States Court of International Trade.
-
Stephanie A. Gallagher of Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
-
Karin J. Immergut of Oregon, to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
-
Carl J. Nichols of Washington, D.C., to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
-
Martha M. Pacold of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
-
Timothy M. Reif of New York, to the United States Court of International Trade.
-
Mary M. Rowland of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
-
Steven C. Seeger of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Vacancies
There are currently 145 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 145 vacancies, 68 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 32 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term. There are 77 pending nominations to seats tracked by Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count. Check out the chart below to see vacancies of four years or more:
Committee action
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to report nominees out of committee for a full confirmation vote. Six nominees were reported and will now face a confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate:
-
Ryan Bounds, nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
-
J. Campbell Barker, nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
-
Susan Brnovich, nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
-
Chad F. Kenney, nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
-
Jeremy D. Kernodle, nominee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
-
Maureen K. Ohlhausen, nominee for the United States Court of Federal Claims.
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.
|
Every week, we at Ballotpedia want to highlight a federal judge or judicial nominee. Right now, we’re taking a closer look at circuit court judges. This week, let’s get to know Juan Torruella, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and a judge you oughta know. He joined the court in 1984 after a nomination from President Ronald Reagan. Prior to his nomination to the First Circuit, Torruella was a district judge for the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. He joined the district court in 1974 upon his nomination by President Gerald Ford.
A native of San Juan, Puerto Rico, Torruella graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania with his bachelor's degree in 1954 and from Boston University's School of Law with his J.D. in 1957. He went on to graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law with his LL.M. in 1984. He also earned a master's in public affairs (M.P.A.) from the University of Puerto Rico School of Public Administration in 1984. |
Here’s what we’re looking ahead to this week:
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday, June 14, 2018, to discuss nominations for the following judges:
|
|
|
|
|
