|
|
|
|
Welcome to the June 17 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 some good beach reading during summer vacation? We've got you covered! Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the most up-to-date political information.
With the one year anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Janus, Ballotpedia is taking a deep dive into how the case has impacted unions across the United States. Janus v. AFSCME overturned the 1977 Abood precedent that allowed unions to require non-member employees to pay fees covering non-political union activities. Register here to join us!
|
Arguments
The Supreme Court has finished hearing oral arguments for cases in its October 2018 term. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' current term.
Opinions
SCOTUS has ruled on seven cases since our June 3 issue. The court has issued rulings in 45 cases so far this term. Twenty-four cases are still under deliberation.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since June 3:
June 3, 2019
- Azar v. Allina Health Services was argued before the court on Jan. 15, 2019.
Several hospitals challenged the way 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 outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that HHS has to follow the notice-and-comment process to change how it reimburses hospitals for treating low-income Medicare patients.
The notice-and-comment process is a rulemaking process that enables federal agencies to amend, repeal, or create an administrative regulation. It requires the agencies to consider written public feedback on proposed rules submitted during a comment period. Click here for more information.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the lower court opinion while serving as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court. He recused himself from the case at the U.S. Supreme Court level.
- Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis was argued before the court on Apr. 22, 2019.
Lois Davis, an IT supervisor for Fort Bend County, Texas, sued the county in U.S. District Court alleging retaliation and religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After several appeals, the 5th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling dismissing Davis' claim. In its reversal, the 5th Circuit ruled a federal court could hear Title VII claims even if the plaintiff had not completed an administrative process required under Title VII. The ruling was consistent with holdings from seven other circuit courts and inconsistent with rulings from three circuit courts.
Title VII requires plaintiffs to file employment discrimination charges with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the alleged discrimination before filing suit in federal court. This is known as an administrative exhaustion requirement.
The outcome: In a 9-0 opinion, the court affirmed the 5th Circuit's ruling, holding a federal court can hear Title VII claims even if the plaintiff has not fulfilled the administrative exhaustion requirement.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion.
- Mont v. United States was argued before the court on Feb. 26, 2019.
In 2005, Jason Mont was convicted on federal drug charges and sentenced to 10 years in prison and five years of supervised release, set to expire on March 7, 2017. In 2017, Mont was sentenced for committing state-level crimes. The U.S. District Court then decided that he violated the terms of his supervised release, issuing a warrant on March 31, 2017. The court sentenced Mont to 42 additional months in prison to be served consecutively with his imprisonment for state-court convictions. Mont appealed the 42-month sentence, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because his supervised release had expired.
The outcome: In a 5-4 opinion, the court affirmed the 6th Circuit's ruling, holding Mont's supervised release was tolled, or paused, under 18 U.S.C. §3624(e), which says a "term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a . . . crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days."
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.
- Taggart v. Lorenzen was argued before the court on April 24, 2019.
Bradley Taggart transferred his share in Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC (SPBC), to his attorney in 2007. Terry Emmert and Keith Jehnke, who also owned shares in SPBC, sued Taggart in state court, seeking attorneys' fees. In 2009, Taggart filed for bankruptcy. In 2010, he received his discharge from the bankruptcy proceedings. After the discharge, Emmert and Jehnke continued to seek attorneys' fees from Taggart.
Following litigation in both state and federal court, Emmert, Jehnke, and SPBC were prohibited from pursuing attorneys' fees. A ruling from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, affirmed by the 9th circuit, also held they did not knowingly violate Taggart's bankruptcy discharge.
The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the court held that a bankruptcy court can hold a creditor in contempt for violating a bankruptcy court's discharge order if "there is no fair ground of doubt" (emphasis in the opinion) that the order prohibited the creditor's conduct.
Justice Breyer wrote the opinion.
June 10, 2019
- Quarles v. United States was argued before the court on April 24, 2019.
The Western District of Michigan sentenced Jamar Quarles to 17 years in prison for committing a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The case was appealed, vacated, and remanded. On remand, the district court again sentenced Quarles to 204 months in prison, and the 6th Circuit affirmed the ruling. The district court and the 6th Circuit agreed that Michigan law was not broader than federal law regarding the generic burglary definition from Taylor v. United States.
The outcome: The court unanimously affirmed the 6th Circuit's ruling, holding "remaining-in burglary occurs when the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in a building or structure."
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
- Return Mail v. U.S. Postal Service was argued before the court on Feb. 19, 2019.
Return Mail, Inc. filed a lawsuit against U.S. Postal Service (USPS) alleging the Postal Service used its patented mail processing system unlawfully and alleging it infringed upon the patent. USPS filed a petition with the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). The Board ruled the challenged patent claims were unpatentable. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's ruling.
The outcome: In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed the Federal Circuit's ruling and remanded the case. The court held the government "is not a 'person' capable of instituting" review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
- Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton was argued before the court on April 16, 2019.
Brian Newton worked for Parker Drilling Management Services (Parker) on a drilling platform fixed on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). He worked 14-day shifts and regularly worked 12 hours each day. Newton alleged he ate for 15 to 30 minutes during his shifts without clocking out and that Parker did not provide 30-minute meal periods for every five hours worked. After Parker terminated his employment, Newton sued in a state court for wage and hour violations under California law. Parker removed the case to U.S. District Court, which dismissed Newton's claims. Newton appealed to the 9th Circuit, which vacated the district court's findings, holding that the district court erred in dismissing the claims.
The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the court vacated and remanded the 9th Circuit's judgment, holding "to the extent federal law applies to a particular issue, state law is inapplicable" under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Justice Thomas wrote the opinion.
Upcoming SCOTUS dates
Here are the upcoming dates of interest in June:
- June 17: SCOTUS will release orders.
- When SCOTUS releases orders, they grant or deny review on the merits in a case. They can also issue other orders, such as granting or denying a request to participate in oral argument, according to SCOTUSblog.
- June 20: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices where justices decide which cases to accept or reject and discuss and vote on cases heard since the previous conference.
- June 24: SCOTUS will release orders.
|
 Which of the following is not an Article I court?
- The United States Tax Court
- The United States Court of Federal Claims
- The United States Court of International Trade
- The United States Bankruptcy Courts
Choose an answer to find out!
|
Confirmations
The Senate has confirmed seven Article-III nominees since our June 3 issue.
- Rossie Alston, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Now that he has received his judicial commission and taken his judicial oath, the Eastern District of Virginia has:
- One vacancy.
- Five Republican and five Democratic presidential appointees.
- Sarah Daggett Morrison, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Now that she has received her judicial commission and taken her judicial oath, the Southern District of Ohio has:
- Three vacancies.
- Two Republican and three Democratic presidential appointees.
- Rodney Smith, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Now that he has received his judicial commission and taken his judicial oath, the Southern District of Florida has:
- Two vacancies.
- Nine Republican and seven Democratic presidential appointees.
- Corey Maze, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. After he receives his judicial commission and takes his judicial oath, the Northern District of Alabama will have:
- No vacancies.
- Six Republican and two Democratic presidential appointees.
- Jean-Paul Boulee, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Now that he has received his judicial commission and taken his judicial oath, the Northern District of Georgia has:
- One vacancy.
- Four Republican and six Democratic presidential appointees.
- Pamela Barker, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. After she receives her judicial commission and takes her judicial oath, the Northern District of Ohio will have:
- No vacancies.
- Five Republican and six Democratic presidential appointees.
- Thomas Barber, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. After he receives his judicial commission and takes his judicial oath, the Middle District of Florida will have:
- Two vacancies.
- Seven Republican and six Democratic presidential appointees.
The Senate has confirmed 119 of President Trump’s Article III judicial nominees—76 district court judges, 41 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices—since January 2017.
Nominations
President Trump announced two new Article III nominees since our June 3 edition.
- Halil Ozerden, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
- John Kness, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The president has announced 190 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 136 vacancies. As of publication, there were 63 pending nominations.
According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, an additional 15 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.
Committee action
The Senate Judiciary Committee reported three new nominees out of committee since our June 3 edition.
- Ada Brown, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
- Steven Grimberg, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
- David Novak, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Do you 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 of judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? 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 94 U.S. District Courts. The district courts are the general trial courts of the U.S. federal court system.
There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
In this edition, we're checking in on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The District of Connecticut has original jurisdiction over cases filed in the state. The court is headquartered in New Haven, with additional courthouses in Bridgeport and Hartford.
Decisions of the court may be appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The District of Connecticut has eight authorized judgeships. There is currently one vacancy. The breakdown of current active judges by appointing president is:
- Barack Obama (D): Three judges
- Bill Clinton (D): Two judges
- Donald Trump (R): One judge
- George W. Bush (R): One judge
|
We'll back with monthly editions of Bold Justice on July 1, August 5, and September 9. Join us on June 26th for a look back at how the Supreme Court ruling in Janus has impacted unions, one year later.
|
|
|
