Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Bold Justice: March 19, 2018

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bold Justice: Arguments are back!

Arguments are finally back! As the court pedals toward the end of the term in June, arguments are piling up and opinions are inbound. Ready, set, go!

We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

This coming week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases, including a highly-contested case from California about the regulation of pregnancy clinics:

  • First up, on Monday, the court will hear Sveen v. Melin. This is a case about whether the retroactive application of revocation-upon-divorce statutes violates a party's rights under the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. The Contracts Clause, found in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, prohibits states from creating laws that impair "the Obligation of Contracts." A revocation-upon-divorce statute is a law that automatically revokes some kind of designation upon divorce. In this case, Minnesota's revocation-upon-divorce statute automatically revokes the designation of a former spouse as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy. If a wife designates her husband as the beneficiary of her life insurance policy and then the couple divorces, the revocation-upon-divorce statute will automatically revoke the husband's beneficiary status. In other words, without any action by the policyholder, the law will automatically remove the policyholder's former spouse from the policy at the time of the divorce.
    • Mark Sveen listed his wife, Kaye Melin, as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy and his children as secondary beneficiaries. After Sveen listed his wife on the policy, Minnesota passed a law providing that its revocation-upon-divorce statute would automatically revoke the life insurance beneficiary status of former spouses upon the couple's divorce. Sveen and Melin later divorced. When Sveen passed away, Melin was still listed as the primary beneficiary of the policy. Sveen’s children filed suit, arguing that they were the rightful beneficiaries of the policy. A federal district court concluded that the revocation-upon-divorce statute revoked Melin's beneficiary status, even though Sveen designated her as a beneficiary before the statute went into effect. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that retroactive application of the statute violated Sveen's rights under the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. Sveen’s children then appealed to the Supreme Court.
  • On Tuesday, the court will hear National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a highly-anticipated case about a California law regulating pregnancy clinics. This is a case about free speech rights in the context of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act. The plaintiffs, advocacy organizations and pregnancy centers that are opposed to abortion, filed suit against the state, arguing that parts of the act violated their free speech rights. They argued that the act infringes on their goal of discouraging women from seeking abortions and significantly burdens their ability to advertise. The state countered that the act was created to make women aware of the existence of state-sponsored healthcare programs and that non-licensed pregnancy centers posed as medical centers in order to prevent women from accessing abortions. The plaintiffs asked a federal district court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the act's provisions during litigation. The district court denied their request, concluding that they had not shown a sufficient likelihood that they would succeed on the merits of their claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.
    • The plaintiffs challenged two provisions of the act. The first challenged provision requires licensed medical pregnancy clinics to disseminate a notice stating the existence of state funding for "family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women." The second contested provision applies to pregnancy centers that cannot provide medical services. Those centers, which the act refers to as unlicensed facilities (since they do not have a license to provide medical services), must post notices that they are not licensed to provide medical services.
  • Finally, on Wednesday, the court will hear Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren. This is a case about sovereign immunity and in rem jurisdiction. A couple who owned property adjacent to land owned by the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe filed suit, seeking a court order that a parcel of disputed land belonged to them rather than to the Tribe. The Tribe moved to dismiss the suit, arguing it was immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A Washington state superior court denied the Tribe's motion. On appeal, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed. The Washington State Supreme Court concluded that because the suit only required the district court to exercise jurisdiction over the land—not over the Tribe—sovereign immunity did not prevent the suit from going forward. The Tribe appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
    • In rem jurisdiction is the power of a court to exercise authority over property. Personal jurisdiction is the power of a court to exercise authority over a person or group. Under United States law, Native American tribes are entitled to sovereign immunity, which prevents them from being sued unless they consent to liability. Sovereign immunity also protects U.S. states and state agencies (like police departments) from suit. In this case, all parties agree that the Tribe is entitled to sovereign immunity. The issue in this case is whether a court can exercise in rem jurisdiction to rule in a case involving disputed tribal property despite the Tribe's sovereign immunity.

As of publication today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in 76 cases so far this term; of those 76, the court has heard arguments in 48 cases. If the court follows its practice from previous years, it will continue to hear arguments in cases this term through April 2018. Although it may continue to consider new appeals, its current number of accepted cases is higher than total number of cases it agreed to hear last term (71). With arguments scheduled through much of April, the court has a limited number of argument days left to fill.

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


SCOTUS cases 3.19.18.png

SCOTUS trivia

The president and members of Congress take oaths before they officially take office. So do Supreme Court justices. But how many? Your question for the week: How many oaths do Supreme Court justices take before taking office?

Choose an answer to find out!


Federal court action

Confirmations

The United States Senate did not confirm any additional nominees this week. As of publication, the Senate has confirmed 29 of President Trump's nominees on courts tracked in Ballotpedia's Federal Vacancy Count. There are an additional 57 nominees awaiting a Senate confirmation vote.

Nominations

President Trump did not announce any additional nominees since our last issue.

Vacancies

As of publication, there were 146 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 146 vacancies, 94 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 33 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term. There are 57 pending nominations to life-term, Article III judicial positions. Check out the chart below to see vacancies of four years or more:

Longest federal court vacancies 3.19.18.png

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee met last week on Thursday, March 15, and reported five additional nominees for a full vote in the Senate:

  • Joel M. Carson III, nominee to the United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit
  • Colm F. Connolly, nominee to the United States District Judge for the District of Delaware.
  • William F. Jung, nominee to the United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida.
  • Maryellen Noreika, nominee to the United States District Judge for the District of Delaware.
  • Ryan T. Holte, nomine to the United States Court of Federal Claims. Judges on the Court of Federal Claims are not Article III judges and do not serve life terms on the bench; instead, they are appointed for 15-year terms.

The Committee is scheduled to meet this week on March 21 to consider additional nominees.

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 Margaret Ryan, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and a judge you oughta know. Judges on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces are appointed for 15-year terms. Ryan joined the court on December 20, 2006, following a nomination from George W. Bush. Her term will end on July 31, 2021. Prior to her appointment, Ryan was an attorney in private practice. She served on active duty for the United States Marine Corps from 1987 to 1999. A native of Chicago, Illinois, Ryan earned her bachelor's degree cum laude from Knox College in 1985 and her J.D. summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School in 1995.

Looking ahead

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

  • The Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases.
  • We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to issue orders and possibly opinions this week.
  • We expected the Judiciary Committee to meet to consider additional nominees.

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:_March_19,_2018&oldid=8438594"