|
|
|
|
Welcome to the March 18 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Celebrate St. Patrick's Day with more news from the federal judiciary! Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the most up-to-date political information.
|
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases this week. The court has heard 49 cases so far this term. As of publication, it has agreed to hear 75 cases.
In its October 2017 term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 69 cases. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' current October 2018 term.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS will hear this week:
March 18
- At issue in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill are 11 state legislative districts a U.S. district court struck down as illegal racial gerrymanders in 2018. The plaintiffs (the Virginia House of Delegates, the state board of elections, and other state officials) argue the district court applied improper standards in making its ruling. The judgment under review came from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This will be the second time the Supreme Court will hear this case, having first heard it in 2017 as Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections.
The issue: The Virginia House of Delegates appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and presented the following questions:
"(1) Whether the district court conducted a proper 'holistic' analysis of the majority-minority Virginia House of Delegates districts under the prior decision in this case, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, even though it ignored a host of evidence, including the overwhelming majority of district lines, which were carried over unchanged from the prior map; the geographic location of population disparities, which imposed severe redistricting constraints and directly impacted which voters were moved into and out of the majority-minority districts; and the degree of constraint the House’s Voting Rights Act compliance goals imposed in implementation, which was minimal;
"(2) whether the Bethune-Hill 'predominance' test is satisfied merely by a lengthy description of ordinary Voting Rights Act compliance measures;
"(3) whether the district court erred in relying on expert analysis it previously rejected as unreliable and irrelevant and expert analysis that lacked any objective or coherent methodology;
"(4) whether the district court committed clear error in ignoring the entirety of the house’s evidentiary presentation under the guise of credibility determinations unsupported by the record and predicated on expert testimony that should not have been credited or even admitted;
"(5) whether Virginia’s choice to draw 11 'safe' majority-minority districts of around or above 55 percent black voting-age population ('BVAP') was narrowly tailored in light of the discretion the Voting Rights Act afforded covered jurisdictions to 'choose to create a certain number of 'safe' districts, in which it is highly likely that minority voters will be able to elect the candidate of their choice,' under Georgia v. Ashcroft, or the requirement the Voting Rights Act, as amended, imposed on covered jurisdictions 'to prove the absence of racially polarized voting' to justify BVAP reductions toward or below 50 percent BVAP;
"(6) whether the district court erred in ignoring the district-specific evidence before the house in 2011 justifying safe districts at or above 55 percent BVAP;
"and (7) whether appellants have standing to bring this appeal."
- Smith v. Berryhill concerns the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied a renewal of Ricky Lee Smith's application for supplemental security income (SSI) resulting from disability. The council said Smith did not file his claim on time. Smith alleged he suffered due process violations, but both the U.S. district court and the 6th Circuit Court disagreed.
The issue: Whether the Appeals Council's decision to reject a disability claim on the ground that the claimant's appeal was untimely is a "final decision" subject to judicial review under Section 405(g).
March 19
- Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt concerns the statute of limitations for the False Claims Act (FCA).
After serving time in prison for being part of a fraudulent subcontracting scheme, Billy Joe Hunt, a Parsons Corporation employee, filed an action alleging Parsons and Cochise Consultancy Inc. violated the False Claims Act (FCA). Parsons and Cochise argued the statute of limitations barred Hunt’s claim. The statute requires a violation be brought within six years of the violation or three years "after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances.” The U.S. district court granted the contractors’ motion to dismiss, but the 11th Circuit reversed and remanded the case.
The issue: Whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an "official of the United States" for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2).
A qui tam action under the False Claims Act allows private citizens with evidence of fraud against the federal government to sue an individual or business on behalf of the U.S. government. Parties bringing such lawsuits are known as qui tam relators.
March 18
- Flowers v. Mississippi concerns racial discrimination in jury selection.
Curtis Flowers was sentenced to death for a quadruple murder in Winona, Mississippi in 1996. He was tried six times for the crime. In two of the trials, the prosecutor was found to have violated the ban on racial discrimination in selecting jurors. After the sixth trial, Flowers challenged the prosecutor's rejection of black jurors, but the Mississippi Supreme Court rejected his challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court then ordered the Mississippi Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling, and the court reinstated and affirmed Flowers' convictions and death sentence.
The issues: Whether a prosecutor's history of adjudicated purposeful race discrimination may be dismissed as irrelevant when assessing the credibility of his proffered explanations for peremptory strikes against minority prospective jurors?
The Supreme Court has ruled on six cases since our Feb. 25 issue. The court has issued rulings in 17 cases so far this term.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since Feb. 25:
Feb. 26
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert was argued before the court Nov. 27, 2018.
Troy Lambert filed a class-action lawsuit against Nutraceutical Corp. for allegedly making false claims about a dietary supplement that was supposed to increase sexual performance. After a U.S. district court declined to let the class action move forward, Lambert filed an appeal, but he did not do so within 14 days, as required by the court.
The outcome: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, holding "Rule 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling." Rule 23(f) establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification.
Feb. 27
- Madison v. Alabama was argued before the court on Oct. 2, 2018.
Attorneys for Vernon Madison sought a stay of his execution in January 2018, arguing he was mentally unfit to be executed. The state court disagreed and denied the stay. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and ordered a stay of execution until a ruling could be made in this case.
The outcome: In a 5-3 vote, the court vacated and remanded the decision of the Alabama 13th Circuit Court, holding "the Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions," according to SCOTUSblog.
Justice Kagan delivered the opinion. She was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined.
- Garza v. Idaho was argued before the court on Oct. 30, 2018.
In 2015, Gilberto Garza, Jr., signed two plea agreements relating to charges of aggravated assault and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. As part of his plea agreements, he waived his right to appeal. Garza later asked his attorney to appeal the convictions, but his attorney did not. Garza then filed petitions for post-conviction relief because his attorney did not file the appeals. The Idaho Supreme Court held Garza’s attorney was allowed to ignore Garza’s request to file the appeals.
The outcome: In a 6-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the decision of the Idaho Supreme Court, holding "Flores-Ortega’s presumption of prejudice applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver."
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court. She was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined and in which Justice Alito joined as to Parts I and II.
- Jam v. Int'l Finance Corp. was argued before the court on Oct. 31, 2018.
Budha Ismael Jam and residents who live in Gujarat, India, sued the International Finance Corporation (IFC) for damages the construction of a power planted caused in their community. The IFC, an international organization that provides loans for companies in underdeveloped countries, gave funding to an Indian company to build and operate the Tata Mundra Plant. Jam and others said the plant caused harm to the water supply, contaminated the air, and killed off fish populations. The IFC’s own internal audit found Jam’s claims were correct. Jam filed suit in a U.S. district court. The court dismissed the case, ruling the IFC was immune from suit. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld the ruling.
The outcome: In a 7-1 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, holding the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 gives international organizations the same immunity from suit foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.
March 4
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, et al. was argued before the court on Jan. 8, 2019.
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation wrote articles for Wall-Street.com. When Wall-Street canceled its license agreement with Fourth Estate, it did not remove all of the content the organization produced. Fourth Estate then filed a copy infringement lawsuit against Wall-Street. Fourth Estate filed an application to register its infringed copyrights, but the Copyright Office had not registered its claims. The U.S. district court dismissed the claim because Fourth Estate did not comply with the registration requirements, and the 11th Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The outcome: In a unanimous decision, the court affirmed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, holding that registration "occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright."
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. was argued before the court on Jan. 14, 2019.
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 9th Circuit Court decreased the award amount but affirmed the district court's verdict.
The outcome: In a unanimous decision, the court reversed in part and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, holding that a "federal district court’s discretion to award 'full costs' to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920."
|
How many women have served on the U.S. Supreme Court?
- Two
- Three
- Four
- Five
Choose an answer to find out!
|
|
Federal court action
Confirmations
The Senate has confirmed six nominees since our Feb. 25 issue.
The Senate has confirmed 91 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—53 district court judges, 36 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices—since January 2017.
Blue slip approval
Eric Miller and Paul Matey were confirmed without blue slip approval from home-state senators. A blue slip is a piece of paper a home-state senator returns to the Senate Judiciary Committee chair to express support for a federal judicial nominee. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) decided not to require blue slip approval for federal judicial nominees to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals. For more information on the blue slip and federal judicial nominations, click here.
- Miller was confirmed without blue slip approval from home-state senators Patty Murray (D) and Maria Cantwell (D) of Washington.
Opposition: Murray opposed Miller's nomination and criticized his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which took place Oct. 24, 2018 during a congressional recess. Two Republican senators attended the meeting. No Democratic senators were present.
Cantwell also opposed the nomination, saying Miller had "spent much of his career fighting against the interest of tribal governments and tribal sovereignty."
Support: Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) supported Miller's nomination, saying, "All in all, his classmates, many of whom have also been his colleagues over the years, say that Mr. Miller is, 'extraordinarily well-qualified' to serve as a federal judge."
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also supported the nomination. He wrote in a letter to Cantwell and Murray, "Miller appears to be a highly qualified and well-regarded nominee."
- Matey was also confirmed without blue slip approval from home-state Senators Bob Menendez (D) and Cory Booker (D) of New Jersey.
Opposition: Booker and Menendez said the White House did not consult them before nominating Matey.
Booker, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the confirmation without blue slip approval "goes right to the ability of any senator in this body to truly represent their state."
Menendez expressed concern for Matey's record and his role in the administration of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R).
Support: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Democrats were responsible for changing the blue slip process, referring to changes Democratic senators introduced in 2013. He also said senators from one state should not be able to block circuit court nominees, since circuit courts serve multiple states.
Partisan balance based on appointing president's party
Once he joins the court, Matey's confirmation will result in a 7-6 Republican-appointed majority on the 3rd Circuit. Before Matey's confirmation, Democratic and Republican presidents had appointed six judges each to the court. Two seats were vacant.
As of March 2019, no other circuit courts would change partisan balance based on an appointing president's party.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit currently has a 7-4 Democratic-appointed majority. It also has two vacancies and two pending nominations. Should the Senate confirm the two nominees, the court's balance would shift to a 7-6 Democratic-appointed majority. Republican appointee Judge Dennis Jacobs is expected to take senior status in May. If a Trump nominee replaces Jacobs, his retirement would not change the balance of the court.
Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has five vacancies and five pending nominations. The court has a 16-8 Democratic-appointed majority.
New nominations
President Trump has announced nine new Article III nominees since our Feb. 25 edition.
The president has announced 177 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 153 vacancies. As of publication, there were 67 pending nominations.
According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, an additional 14 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 six new nominees out of committee since our Feb. 25 issue. Five now face a confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate:
- Neomi Rao, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Senate has since confirmed Rao.
- Joseph F. Bianco, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
- Michael H. Park, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
- Greg G. Guidry, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
- Michael T. Liburdi, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
- Peter D. Welte, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota
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? 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 13 United States courts of appeals, or circuit courts.
In this edition, we're staying put in Washington, D.C., to visit the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit is the only one of the 13 federal appeals courts whose jurisdiction is determined entirely on the subject of the lawsuit it hears, rather than on the geographical location from which the appeal originated.
The Federal Circuit hears appeals from:
- Article I tribunals
- United States Court of Federal Claims
- United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
- United States Board of Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Boards of Contract Appeals (for government contracts)
- United States Merit Systems Protection Board (federal employment and employment benefits)
- United States International Trade Commission
- Article III courts
- United States Court of International Trade
- United States district courts (for patent and certain other appeals)
Specifically, it is the job of the Federal Circuit to hear all appeals from U.S. district courts related to:
- Non-tort monetary complaints against the federal government where the contested dollar amount is under $10,000 (the "Little Tucker Act").
- All appeals from decisions of any of the U.S. district courts where the original action included a complaint arising under the patent laws, except, as the Supreme Court decided, if the patent claims arose solely as counter-claims by the defendant. The other federal appellate courts can now—in theory—hear patent counter-claims. However, this happens infrequently.
The Federal Circuit has 12 authorized judgeships. Democratic presidents appointed eight of the court's 12 current judges. There are no vacancies.
SCOTUS has heard 47 appeals of Federal Circuit decisions since 2007 and reversed 34 of them (72.3 percent).
|
We'll be back with a new edition of Bold Justice on March 25, 2019.
|
|
|
