|
|
|
|
Welcome to the March 25 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. 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 five cases this week. The court has heard 53 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 25
- PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc. concerns an interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In 2013, PDR Network, LLC sent a fax to Carlton & Harris, a West Virginia chiropractor, offering the company a free copy of the Physicians Desk Reference. Carlton & Harris then sued PDR in U.S. district court under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The TCPA prohibits companies from using fax machines to send unsolicited advertisements and allows the recipient of an unsolicited fax advertisement to sue the sender.
The issue: "Does the Hobbs Act strip courts of jurisdiction to engage in a traditional Chevron analysis and require automatic deference to an agency's order even if there has been no challenge to the 'validity' of such order?"
The Hobbs Act is a federal law enacted in 1964 that prohibits robbery and extortion. According to Mic.com, the Hobbs Act "is frequently used in connection with cases involving public corruption, commercial disputes, and corruption directed at members of labor unions."
- Chevron deference is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. Click here for more information.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton concerns maritime law. Christopher Batterton was injured while working on a vessel owned and operated by The Dutra Group. A hatch cover blew open and crushed his hand because the vessel was missing a safety feature, making the vessel unseaworthy. Batterton sued Dutra for punitive damages. According to the American Bar Association, the 9th Circuit Court and the 5th Circuit Court "differ on whether punitive damages can be recovered based on a claim of unseaworthiness." The Supreme Court agreed to resolve the split.
The issue: Whether punitive damages may be awarded to a Jones Act seaman in a personal injury suit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.
The Jones Act mandates that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported in U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-manned ships. Under the act, sailors have the right to seek damages from the crew, captain, or ship owner in the case of injury.
March 26
- In Rucho v. Common Cause, Common Cause filed suit on Aug. 5, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, arguing North Carolina's congressional district plan was an illegal partisan gerrymander. On Aug. 22, 2016, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina filed a similar suit in the same court. The two cases were consolidated. On Aug. 27, 2018, a U.S. district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The issue: "(1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims.
"(2) Whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
"(3) Whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander."
- Lamone v. Benisek is a continuation of a case originally brought before the high court as Benisek v. Lamone in the 2017-2018 term.
Seven Republicans, all of whom lived and voted in Maryland's 6th Congressional District before its reconfiguration in the 2010 redistricting cycle, claimed state lawmakers altered the 6th District’s boundaries in order to dilute the influence of Republican votes. The plaintiffs alleged this action violated their First Amendment associational rights. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on Nov. 7, 2018.
The issue: "(1) Are the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court unmanageable?
"(2) Did the three-judge district court err when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as 'undisputed' evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections?
"(3) Did the three-judge district court abuse its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting?"
March 27
- Kisor v. Wilkie is about whether courts should defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. The case involves whether the court should overturn Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. (1945) and Auer v. Robbins (1997).
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied a Marine's initial claim of disability benefits. After many years, the agency re-opened his case and awarded benefits, but he disputed when the effective date of those benefits should be. The Marine, James Kisor, disagreed with the VA's interpretation of the term "relevant" in one of the regulations under which the agency denied him retroactive benefits. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the VA interpretation under Auer deference.
Deference is a principle of judicial review in which a federal court yields to an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation. Click here for more information.
The issues: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
The Supreme Court has ruled on five cases since our March 18 issue. The court has issued rulings in 22 cases so far this term.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since March 18:
March 19
Under the mandatory detention provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the government is required to detain noncitizen U.S. residents who were convicted of certain crimes "when...released" from criminal custody. The government had relied on this provision to begin detaining lawful permanent residents years after their release from criminal custody.
Three filed suit, alleging that because they were not detained immediately when they were released from criminal custody, the government could not rely on the mandatory detention provision to hold them without bond. The 9th Circuit agreed, ruling that the mandatory detention provision only applies to noncitizens who are detained by immigration authorities promptly following their release from criminal custody.
The outcome: In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the 9th Circuit ruling, holding that the mandatory detention provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act still applies to defendants even if they are not detained immediately after being released from criminal custody.
- Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries was argued before the court on Oct. 10, 2018.
The widows of two U.S. Navy sailors who were exposed to asbestos while they were serving on Navy ships argued their husbands developed cancer because of the exposure. The manufacturers argued they were not liable for the sailors’ deaths because they did not make or supply the asbestos-containing components. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled “that, under maritime law, a manufacturer of a product that does not contain asbestos can still be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos in another product if the manufacturer should reasonably foresee that its conduct would lead to the injuries,” according to SCOTUSblog.
The outcome: In a 6-3 vote, the Court affirmed the 3rd Circuit's ruling, holding that "a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger."
- Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. was argued before the court on Oct. 30, 2018.
In 2013, Cougar Den, a fuel wholesaler owned by a member of the Yakama Indian Nation, received a $3.6 million tax bill from the state of Washington. Cougar Den argued that under the Yakama Treaty of 1855 it did not have to pay the tax bill. The treaty allows members of the Yakama Indian Nation "the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways." The Washington State Supreme Court agreed with Cougar Den, and the state of Washington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The outcome: In a 5-4 opinion, the Court affirmed the Washington State Supreme Court ruling that a fuel wholesaler owned by a member of the Yakama Indian Nation was exempt from paying state fuel taxes for using public highways because the Yakama Treaty of 1855 granted members of the Nation the right "to travel upon all public highways" and preempted its obligation to pay the tax.
March 20
- Frank v. Gaos was argued before the court on Oct. 31, 2018.
In July 2013, a group of people brought a class-action lawsuit against Google under the Stored Communications Act for giving users’ internet search terms to third party websites, a violation of privacy rights. Google agreed to pay $5.3 million to six cy pres recipients.
According to ClassAction.org, a cy pres award "is the distribution of money from a class action settlement to a charitable organization."
Google agreed to give the money to universities and organizations that provided internet privacy education. The settlement plan was submitted to a U.S. district court for approval, and the court preliminarily approved the plan. In 2014, five individuals, including Thomas Frank, filed objections to the settlement plan. In 2015, a U.S. district court approved the settlement.
The outcome: In a per curiam decision, the Court vacated and remanded the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, asking the lower court to address the plantiffs' legal right to sue in light of a 2016 SCOTUS decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. In Spokeo, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to sue, also known as "standing", requires an actual injury, regardless of a violation of statute.
A per curiam decision is issued collectively by the court. The authorship is not indicated. Click here for more information.
- Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP was argued before the court on Jan. 7, 2019.
Dennis Obduskey obtained a loan for a home in 2007 which was serviced by Wells Fargo. He defaulted on the loan in 2009. Foreclosure proceedings were initiated several times over the next six years but were never completed. Wells Fargo hired McCarthy and Holthus, LLP in 2014 to carry out a non-judicial foreclosure on the home. Obduskey filed suit, claiming a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). A district court granted Wells Fargo and McCarthy's petition to dismiss the case, and the circuit court affirmed.
The outcome: In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, holding that a business that only engages in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings "is not a 'debt collector' under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of enforcing security interests" under a specific provision of the act, according to SCOTUSblog.
|
Deference, or judicial deference, is a principle of judicial review. In the context of administrative law, deference applies when a federal court yields to an agency's interpretation of either a statute that Congress instructed the agency to administer or a regulation promulgated by the agency. SCOTUS has developed several forms of deference in reviewing agency actions.
Which of the following is not a form of deference?
Choose an answer to find out!
|
Confirmations
The Senate has not confirmed any new nominees since our March 18 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.
New nominations
President Trump has not announced any new Article III nominees since our March 18 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 66 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 did not report any new nominees out of committee since our March 18 issue.
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.
|
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 United States federal district courts. The district courts are the general trial courts of the U.S. federal courts.
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 Maine. The District of Maine has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction, which consists of all the counties in the state of Maine. The court is headquartered in Portland.
When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
The District of Maine has three authorized judgeships. Barack Obama (D) appointed two of the current judges and Donald Trump (R) appointed the third. There are no vacancies on the court.
|
We'll be back with a new edition of Bold Justice on April 1, 2019.
|
|
|
